[Senate Hearing 116-576]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-576
KEEP ON TRUCKIN': STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES ON TRUCKING IN AMERICA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND SAFETY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 4, 2020
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
52-614 PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi, Chairman
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota MARIA CANTWELL, Washington,
ROY BLUNT, Missouri Ranking
TED CRUZ, Texas AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
CORY GARDNER, Colorado TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee GARY PETERS, Michigan
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MIKE LEE, Utah TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin JON TESTER, Montana
TODD YOUNG, Indiana KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
RICK SCOTT, Florida JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
John Keast, Staff Director
Crystal Tully, Deputy Staff Director
Steven Wall, General Counsel
Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
Renae Black, Senior Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND SAFETY
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska, Chairman TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois, Ranking
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
ROY BLUNT, Missouri RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
CORY GARDNER, Colorado TOM UDALL, New Mexico
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia GARY PETERS, Michigan
TODD YOUNG, Indiana TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
RICK SCOTT, Florida
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 4, 2020................................. 1
Statement of Senator Fischer..................................... 1
Statement of Senator Duckworth................................... 2
Statement of Senator Peters...................................... 4
Statement of Senator Lee......................................... 67
Statement of Senator Young....................................... 70
Letter of support dated February 3, 2020 for the DRIVE-Safe
Act to Hon. Roger Wicker and Hon. Maria Cantwell........... 71
Statement of Senator Capito...................................... 74
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 75
Witnesses
Dawn King, President, Truck Safety Coalition (TSC); and Board
Member, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways (CRASH)........ 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Chris Spear, President and Chief Executive Officer, American
Trucking Associations.......................................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Lewie Pugh, Executive Vice President, Owner-Operator Independent
Drivers Association............................................ 33
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Jake Parnell, Manager, Cattleman's Livestock Market on behalf of
the Livestock Marketing Association............................ 47
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Sergeant John Samis, Delaware State Police; and President,
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance............................. 53
Prepared statement........................................... 54
Appendix
Letter dated January 31, 2020 to Hon. Deb Fischer and Hon. Tammy
Duckworth from Shailen P. Bhatt, President and CEO, Intelligent
Transportation Society of America.............................. 79
Letter dated February 3, 2020 to Hon. Deb Fischer and Hon. Tammy
Duckworth from Nathaniel F. Wenecke, Senior Vice President,
American Property Casualty Insurance Association............... 81
Cathrine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety,
prepared statement............................................. 82
Response to written questions submitted to Dawn King by:
Hon. Rick Scott.............................................. 90
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 90
Hon. Tammy Duckworth......................................... 93
Hon. Richard Blumenthal...................................... 95
Response to written questions submitted to Chris Spear by:
Hon. Deb Fischer............................................. 96
Hon. Rick Scott.............................................. 98
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 99
Hon. Tammy Duckworth......................................... 103
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 105
Hon. Richard Blumenthal...................................... 106
Hon. Tammy Baldwin........................................... 112
Hon. Gary Peters............................................. 113
Response to written questions submitted to Lewie Pugh by:
Hon. Deb Fischer............................................. 113
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 114
Hon. Richard Blumenthal...................................... 117
Hon. Tammy Baldwin........................................... 118
Hon. Gary Peters............................................. 119
Response to written questions submitted to Jake Parnell by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 120
Hon. Richard Blumenthal...................................... 121
Hon. Gary Peters............................................. 122
Response to written questions submitted to Sgt. John Samis by:
Hon. Deb Fischer............................................. 122
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 123
Hon. Tammy Duckworth......................................... 124
Hon. Richard Blumenthal...................................... 126
Hon. Gary Peters............................................. 127
KEEP ON TRUCKIN': STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES ON TRUCKING IN AMERICA
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2020
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Transportation and Safety,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m., in
room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Deb Fischer,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Fischer [presiding], Thune, Moran,
Capito, Young, Scott, Lee, Duckworth, Blumenthal, and Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA
Senator Fischer. The hearing will come to order. Good
morning. Welcome to today's hearing of the Senate Subcommittee
on Transportation and Safety. Both by weight and by volume,
trucks move more freight domestically in the United States than
any other form of transportation. This includes first and last
mile connections, long-haul transportation, and everything in
between. It is also a major source of employment across our
country.
The trucking industry is a key component of our
transportation network and it is vital to our economy. Today,
we are going to hear from stakeholders about the current state
of trucking, and how Federal policy could aid in its safety,
efficiency, and productivity, particularly as Congress
considers a Surface Transportation Reauthorization.
Federal trucking policy has gone through many changes in
the past decade, including changes in both the industry and
regulatory changes at the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration. Of the many trucking issues I hear about from
Nebraskans, hours of service is at the top of the list. The
concerns I hear from truckers are consistent. These regulations
are inflexible and do not reflect real world situations.
Further, because the trucking industry is so diverse, a
one-size-fits-all approach fails to provide common sense
solutions for each of the different types of operations.
Congress requires FMCSA to enforce hours of service
requirements to ensure drivers don't drive while they are
fatigued and have delegated significant authority to FMCSA to
develop these requirements. Most recently, FMCSA issued a
notice of proposed rulemaking to update the hours of service
requirements.
I am encouraged that the agency is taking steps to update
us regulations and that interested stakeholders have made their
comments known to the agency. One group in particular that has
faced challenges with the hours of service regulations is our
livestock haulers. They have the critical responsibility of
moving live, perishable products.
For that reason, livestock haulers can easily find
themselves in a regulatory bind between the hours of service
requirement and animal welfare lives. While the hours of
service regulations have received significant attention,
several other regulatory changes are worth discussing today.
Recent regulations set to go into effect include the entry-
level driver-training rule and the drug and alcohol
clearinghouse, both of which will improve safety. However, in
both cases, FMCSA has had to delay parts of these rules.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses more about the
intended impact of these rules on safety. Additionally, the
FAST Act required FMCSA to take down the safety measure system,
those scores, from public view. After a study by the National
Academy of Sciences, FMCSA is now considering how to move
forward with this program. I expect to hear from the witnesses
about the impact SMS and the broader compliance-safety
accountability program has on trucking.
Other areas impacting truckers and the trucking industry
include the availability of safe truck parking, advances in
vehicle and load matching technology, freight availability, and
the amount of time that truckers spend detained while they are
waiting for loads.
Here to provide input on the state of trucking and feedback
on trucking regulations are Chris Spear from the American
Trucking Association, Jake Parnell representing the Livestock
Marketing Association, Lewie Pugh from the Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Association, Dawn King from the Truck
Safety Coalition, and Sergeant John Samis from the Commercial
Vehicle Safety Association.
I want to thank the witnesses for traveling today to
participate in this hearing. I know all of you are widely
respected within your organizations, and you have unique
experiences and perspectives that are valuable to us as we
continue our work to improve the safety and efficiency of
America's trucking industry. I look forward to your testimony.
And now I would like to invite my colleague and Ranking Member
Duckworth to offer her opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS
Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Chairman Fischer, and I want
to apologize to everyone for being late this morning. For a
former soldier, missing your SP time is really an embarrassing
thing, so thank you for your patience, and thank you to the
Chairman for holding today's hearing. I also want to thank all
of our witnesses for joining us today to discuss some of the
challenges and opportunities facing U.S. commercial trucking
industry.
As I said during last week's hearing, our global
competitiveness is closely tied to a safe, reliable, and
efficient transportation network. The nexus between interstate
commerce and commercial trucking clearly demonstrates the close
relationship between Federal infrastructure investments and our
Nation's economic prosperity.
Of the 18.6 billion tons of freight goods that were moved
across the United States in 2018, 12 billion tons valued more
at more than $12 trillion were moved by truck. Illinois is at
the epicenter of our Nation's freight transportation network,
offering unparalleled access to global markets. Over 1.2
trillion tons of freight, valued at nearly $3 trillion, move
through Illinois each year and trucks carry over half of that
tonnage, about 664 million tons valued at more than $1
trillion.
Investing in my State's freight infrastructure keeps goods
flowing through the entire system and delivers a tremendous
return on investment for industries and customers in all 50
States. Yet, the most important aspect of any efficient
transportation network is safety. Unfortunately, safety remains
a work in progress and we have a long way to go. Bottom line,
we can and we must do better. Our nation endured 36,560 roadway
fatalities in 2018, including 4,951 fatalities involving large
trucks. While it is technically accurate that large truck
fatalities declined 69 percent from 1982 to 2017, it is
important to recognize that over the last decade, for which we
have data, from 2009 to 2018, large truck fatalities have
actually increased by 47 percent.
We need to keep a close eye on evolving trends and their
impacts on roadway users. And right now, safety trends suggest
a reason for concern. Meanwhile, Federal agencies like FMCSA,
NHTSA, and GAO are pursuing a number of data collection
efforts, including pilot programs and investigations to analyze
the impacts of safety-related trucking initiatives.
These agencies and others like them should have the
opportunity to provide Congress with the technical analysis and
stakeholder feedback needed to minimize uncertainty associated
with untested initiatives. As we move toward FAST Act
reauthorization, Congress should prioritize and promote the use
of new safety technologies designed to reduce hazards for law
enforcement and enhance supply chain efficiencies.
We should also consider and reinforce the important role
that states play in commercial trucking and provide the
necessary space for critical collaborations and partnerships to
develop for the benefit of improved safety outcomes.
Finally, Congress should continue to promote meaningful
benchmarks and metrics designed to enhance safety and
performance while informing future policy discussions. I look
forward to debating these and other important topics with an
eye toward safety as this Committee works in a bipartisan
manner to establish and reform surface transportation policies.
Again, I want to thank today's witnesses and our Chairman,
and I look forward to your testimony.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Duckworth. At this
time, we will recognize witnesses for their opening testimony.
And I would like to recognize Senator Peters who has the,
really, pleasure and honor to introduce our witness from
Michigan today.
STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN
Senator Peters. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the
opportunity. I would like to extend a very warm welcome to our
witness, a native Michigander, Dawn King. Nearly 15 years after
suffering from a terrible tragedy that took the life of her
father, Ms. King has made it her life's work to advocate for
measures to improve safety on our roadways.
Ms. King currently serves as the President of the Truck
Safety Coalition. It is a partnership between Citizens for
Reliable and Safe Highways Foundation and Parents Against Tired
Truckers. In this role, Ms. King is a passionate and a tireless
advocate for safety legislation and an invaluable voice for
victims on both the state as well as the Federal level.
Ms. King hails from Davisburg, Michigan, just Northwest of
Detroit, and is here with her husband Bruce who also advocates
on truck safety issues. Thank you Dawn for your testimony today
and thank you Bruce for taking time to meet with me earlier
this morning and for your work on these very important issues.
I look forward to your testimony as well as the testimony
of all the members of this very distinguished panel. Thank you,
Madam Chair.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Peters. Ms. King, you
are recognized.
STATEMENT OF DAWN KING, PRESIDENT,
TRUCK SAFETY COALITION (TSC); AND BOARD MEMBER,
CITIZENS FOR RELIABLE AND SAFE HIGHWAYS (CRASH)
Ms. King. Good morning, Chairman Fischer, Ranking Member
Duckworth, and the other members of the Subcommittee. My name
is Dawn King and I am President of the Truck Safety Coalition,
and I am also a Board member of CRASH, which along with Parents
Against Tired Truckers forms TSC. Thank you very much for the
opportunity to testify this morning.
I am here today to give a voice to thousands of survivors,
victims and families like mine, who have had a loved one killed
or seriously injured in a tragic but preventable truck crash.
Here in the hearing room, we have another victim's family
member, Tracy Kenichi, whose daughter and unborn granddaughter
were killed on the beltway in D.C.--several years ago, and she
is here to provide support as well.
I am here because my father Bill Badger was killed two days
before Christmas in 2004 by a tired trucker who fell asleep at
the wheel. Every year thousands of people are dying needlessly
in truck crashes. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's most recent data show that 4,951 people were
killed in 2018. That is nearly a 50 percent increase from 2009.
Additionally, 151,000 people were injured and 885 truck
occupants were killed, the highest since 1989. Yet even with
this horrendous rise in truck crash fatalities, important and
life-saving truck safety laws and regulations are under
relentless and repeated attacks in Congress and the
Administration. I assure you these safety rollbacks and repeals
would never be tolerated in any other mode of transportation,
especially one with such an unacceptable death and injury toll.
For example, FMCSA is proposing unsafe changes to the hours of
service regulations. Furthermore, every session of Congress
there are attempts to exempt special interests from the hours
of service rules.
My written statement goes into detail about how harmful
these proposals will be to safety and we urge you to oppose
each of these attacks. Even more difficult to understand is the
introduced legislation, the so-called DRIVE-Safe Act which
lowers the minimum age from 21 to 18 to allow teens to drive in
interstate commerce. There is ample research showing teen
drivers have significantly higher crash rates and are much less
safe than older drivers.
There is absolutely no evidence that introducing teen
drivers will in any way improve safety. TSC strongly opposes
this change and so does the American public. Today, Advocates
for Highway and Auto Safety released an opinion poll that shows
that 62 percent of the public opposes this change. What we
should be doing is focusing on what can be done to promote
truck safety. Crash avoidance technologies like automatic
emergency braking have been proven through years of use by
leading truck companies to reduce the numbers of crashes and
mitigate the severity.
Several bills, including S. 2700, the Protecting Roadside
First Responders Act, have been introduced to require the
installation of this life-saving technology. We commend Senator
Duckworth for her leadership in co-sponsoring that legislation
with Senator Durbin. Additionally, there is clear and
convincing evidence that speed limiters make trucking safer.
This life-saving technology is not new and has been used in
other countries for years.
In the U.S., it has been a standard component on most
trucks since the late 1990s. Many truck companies voluntarily
set their trucks to a safe speed, but all trucks should be
using speed limiters. And truck underride crashes are some of
the most horrific crashes imaginable, particularly when violent
intrusion occurs into the passenger compartment. We urge Senate
passage of bipartisan legislation, S. 665, the Stop Underrides
Act, which would strengthen rearguards as well as improve
underride protections on all sides of the tractor-trailer. This
bill is sponsored by Senator Gillibrand and co-sponsored by
many members of this committee including Senators Duckworth,
Markey, Udall, Blumenthal, and Peters.
All of these technologies can prevent serious and deadly
crashes. However, when a crash involves a truck company that is
underinsured, the results can be devastating. Today, the
minimum amount of insurance required per truck, per crash, no
matter how many victims, is only $750,000. That was set 40
years ago and it has never been increased. Many victims of
truck crashes struggle to pay for lifelong medical and rehab
expenses. We urge Senate introduction and support for H.R.
3781, the Insurance Act. This bill will increase the minimum
insurance required and account for medical cost inflation,
which then would be indexed every 5 years.
In conclusion, the families of victims and the survivors of
large truck crashes remain hopeful that members of this
committee will make sure that safety never takes a backseat to
industry profits or political pressure.
And, I would like to take a moment right now to wish my dad
a happy birthday. Had he not been killed 15 years ago by a
tired trucker in a completely preventable crash, he would be
turning 91 today. I can't call him. I cannot talk to him
tonight, like I would have. I cannot send him a card, but I can
offer this testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to testify,
and I am pleased to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. King follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dawn King, President, Truck Safety Coalition
(TSC); and Board Member, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways
(CRASH)
Introduction
Good morning Chairman Fischer, Ranking Member Duckworth and Members
of the Subcommittee.
My name is Dawn King and I am the President of the Truck Safety
Coalition (TSC) as well as a board member of the Citizens for Reliable
and Safe Highways (CRASH) Foundation, which along with Parents Against
Tired Truckers (PATT) forms TSC. I appreciate the invitation and the
opportunity to testify this morning before the Subcommittee.
I am from Davisburg, Michigan, so I am heartened that another
Michigander, Senator Peters, serves on this Subcommittee.
Unfortunately, I am not here before this Subcommittee today to
represent families from my state but also everyone from every state who
everyday uses our roads and highways. I am here today to give a voice
to survivors and victims of large truck crashes and to families, like
mine, who have lost a loved one in these preventable and tragic
catastrophes.
My father, Bill Badger, was killed fon December 23, 2004, just over
the Georgia state border, by a tired trucker who fell asleep at the
wheel and crashed into his car. At the time of the crash, Dad was on
his way to the airport to fly to New Jersey and join me and my siblings
for Christmas. That year, was particularly tough for us since our Mom
had passed away in July. The truck driver, who fell asleep and smashed
into Dad's car, stated that he had been driving all night in order to
get to Atlanta by 7:00 a.m. so that he could be assigned to another
truck which was headed to Florida in order to be with his family for
Christmas. In the end, however, neither my family nor his were whole
that holiday.
Shortly after Dad's crash, my family and I were fortunate enough to
connect with the Truck Safety Coalition. This wonderful organization is
a partnership between Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways (CRASH)
Foundation and Parents Against Tired Truckers (PATT). Our shared
mission is to reduce the number of deaths and injuries caused by truck-
related crashes, provide compassionate support to truck crash survivors
and families of truck crash victims, and educate the public, policy-
makers and media about truck safety issues.
Truck Crashes, Injuries, and Deaths Have Been on the Rise Since 2009
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) most
recent release of data shows that fatal crashes involving at least one
large truck killed 4,951 people in 2018. To put this figure in
perspective for you: it is approximately 2.5 times as many people as
the total number of individuals who have served in the U.S. Senate
since 1789.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44762.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 2009, fatalities from crashes involving at least one large
truck have gone up 46.5 percent, with 42 out of the 50 states
experiencing increases. Unsurprisingly, the subset of states with truck
speed limits of 75 mph or more saw the largest spike in deaths, rising
66.5 percent in that same time.
In that same 9-year time frame, truck crash injuries have tripled
from an all-time low of 51,000 (which is still staggeringly high) to
151,000. This is an unacceptable and unconscionable trend.
Amidst this significant increase in deaths and injuries and this
marked decline in truck safety, the Truck Safety Coalition and our
volunteers hope that members of this Subcommittee will oppose specific
anti-safety policies that are being considered by Congress and the U.S.
Department of Transportation. Additionally, we urge you to support
numerous lifesaving measures that can significantly reduce the death
and injury toll on our roads. Truck crash deaths and injuries are a
major public health problem and we urgently need Congress to direct the
implementation of data-driven solutions to address the pervasive but
preventable problems, like driver fatigue, distraction, and speeding,
that contribute to so many truck crashes. My statement today seeks to
inform Members and the public about both the dangerous policies that
will further exacerbate truck safety and available safety solutions
that could dramatically improve truck safety for motorists and
commercial drivers.
Now is Not the Time to Weaken Truck Safety Rules and Permit Special
Interest Rollbacks of Proven Safety Reforms
FMCSA Should Abandon Efforts to Weaken the Hours of Service Rules
Last year, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) requesting comments on
unstudied, unsafe proposed changes to the Hours of Service (HOS)
regulations, including:
Extending by two hours the maximum window during which
driving is permitted under the adverse driving conditions
exemption to the HOS rules;
Extending the driving window from 12 hours to 14 hours and
extending the distance from 100 air miles to 150 air miles for
the short haul exemption;
Allowing drivers to split their required 10 hours off-duty
into two periods: one period of at least seven consecutive
hours in the sleeper berth and the other period of not less
than two consecutive hours, either off-duty or in the sleeper
berth; and
Requiring a 30 minute break after eight hours of driving
time instead of on-duty time, and allowing the requirement to
be satisfied by an on-duty break from driving, rather than
requiring an off-duty break;
Allowing split duty period: one off-duty break of at least
30 minutes, but no more than three hours, that would pause a
truck driver's 14-hour working window, provided the driver
takes 10 consecutive hours off-duty at the end of the work
shift.
FMCSA's Proposed Change = Unsafe and Unwarranted--Adverse Driving
Conditions:
Extend by two hours the maximum window during which driving
is permitted under the adverse driving conditions exemption to
the HOS rules.
In the NPRM, the FMCSA asserted that this proposed change to the
adverse driving conditions exemption would not increase driving time or
vehicle miles traveled (VMT), thus there would be no safety concern.
Yet, this ignores the effect that longer shifts have on injury risks
and error rates.
There is compelling research that found lengthening a work day
results in increased injury risk to a worker. One study found that
injury risks go up after eight hours on task, with a 30 percent
increase on a 12-hour task.\2\ This validates the findings from an
earlier major meta-analysis of relative risk of performance lapses over
the course of different shift durations that found risk was
approximately doubled after 12 hours of work and trebled after 14 hours
of work.\3\ More recently, a study was performed to identify associated
factors with multidimensional driving risks, specifically focusing on
fatigue, sleep quality, daytime sleepiness, and health status among
Korean occupational drivers; one of the key findings: ``those working
for longer than 12 hours per day . . . were a vulnerable group.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Folkard, Simon, and David A. Lombardi. ``Modeling the Impact of
the Components of Long Work Hours on Injuries and `Accidents.' ''
American Journal of Industrial Medicine, vol. 49, no. 11, Nov. 2006,
pp. 953-963., doi:10.1002/ajim.20307.
\3\ Folkard, Simon. Time On Shift Effects In Safety: A Mini-Review,
Abstract in the Shiftwork International Newsletter, May 1995, 12:1,
Timothy Monk, ed., presentations from the 12th International Symposium
On Night-and Shiftwork, Ledyard, CN, June 13-18, 1995.
\4\ Kwon,S.,Kim,H.,Kim,G.S.,Cho,E.,2019.Fatigue and poor sleep are
associated with driving risk among Korean occupational drivers.
J.Transp.Health14,100572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2019.100572.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if a driver logs the same number of hours on duty or driving,
this proposed change would result over a longer elapsed time which
would result in a longer day overall.
FMCSA's Proposed Change--Short Haul Operations:
Extend the driving window from 12 hours to 14 hours, and
Extend the distance from 100 air miles to 150 air miles.
This proposed change will result in more truck drivers being able
to be considered ``short-haul'' drivers which ultimately means fewer
carriers being required to use electronic logging devices. Based on the
FMCSA's own reasoning in finalizing the ELD mandate, this will greatly
diminish safety. In fact, the agency noted in October 2017 in the
Federal Register that ``[the ELD] rule improves commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) safety . . . for both motor carriers and driver by
increasing the use of ELDs within the motor carrier industry, which
will, in turn, improve compliance with applicable HOS rules.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 80 FR 78293
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering the aforementioned finding, it is critical that the
agency provide compelling evidence that expanding the number of long-
haul truck drivers who would be eligible to employ the short-haul
exception, if this proposed change is promulgated, will actually
improve commercial motor vehicle safety.
Several years ago, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
(IIHS) conducted a study that found a statistically significant 383
percent increase in crash risk for drivers operating under a short-haul
exemption. In light of this startling statistic, it seems unlikely that
the FMCSA will furnish data showing that this proposed change will
benefit to CMV safety. In fact, our streets and roads will be even more
dangerous and the change should be summarily rejected.
FMCSA's Proposed Change--Sleeper Berth:
Allow drivers to split their required 10 hours off-duty into
two periods: one period of at least seven consecutive hours in
the sleeper berth and the other period of not less than two
consecutive hours, either off-duty or in the sleeper berth.
The split sleep berth exception must ensure that a truck driver has
enough time to achieve restorative sleep.\6\ A recent study published
in Transportation Research Part F, indicates that ``in previous
studies, sleeping duration less than seven hours has been associated
with increased cases of drowsy driving crashes among truck drivers
(Tzamalouka et al., 2005). Drivers who were partially sleep deprived
(sleeping less than 4-h daily) were found to be at 4.8 folds higher
risk of falling asleep at the wheel as compared to the sufficiently
sleeping (6-8 h) drivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Sando, T., Mtoi, E., Moses, R.; Potential Causes of Driver
Fatigue: A Study on Transit Bus Operators in Florida, Transportation
Research Board 2011 Annual Meeting, Nov. 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, Maia et al., (2013) also found that as compared to the
drivers taking appropriate sleep of 7 h, the drivers taking short (6 h)
and very short (<5 h) duration of sleep were at 2 and 3.8 times higher
risk of drowsy driving respectively.''
Based on these compelling studies, the FMCSA should immediately
rescind this alarming proposed change until they can provide undisputed
research and information disproving the adverse effects of sleeping
less than seven hours.
FMCSA's Proposed Change--30-Minute Break:
Require a break after eight hours of driving time instead of
on-duty time, and
Allow the requirement to be satisfied by an on-duty break
from driving, rather than requiring an off-duty break.
At a time when truck occupant deaths are at their highest levels
since 1989, the FMCSA must provide convincing evidence and peer-
reviewed research that removing the requirement of a 30-minute break
after 8 hours of on-duty time will improve safety, for truck drivers
and the general public.
The FMCSA acknowledges in their NPRM that these proposed ``changes
to the 30-minute break provision . . . do not involve any increase to
the 11-hour driving limit.'' While this may be true, this change could
result in a driver working 11 hours before he can take a 30-minute
break. This is unquestionably dangerous. A 2013 study found ``that
time-on-task across 14 hours of work impacts risk. The risk of being
involved in a [safety critical event] generally increased as work hour
increased. That is, driving time that occurred later in the driver's
workday, due to performing non-driving tasks earlier in the workday,
had a negative safety effect.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Susan A. Soccolich, Myra Blanco, Richard J. Hanowski, Rebecca
L. Olson, Justin F. Morgan, Feng Guo, Shih-Ching Wu. An analysis of
driving and working hour on commercial motor vehicle driver safety
using naturalistic data collection, Accident Analysis & Prevention,
Volume 58, 2013, Pages 249-258,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other research corroborates the notion that extending continuous
time on task, which this change would do, has a deleterious effect on
safety. Simo Salminen, a senior researcher at the Finnish Institute of
Occupational Health, reviewed eight studies that showed the ``risk of
occupational injury was 41 percent higher for 10-hour working days
compared to 8-hour working days . . . [and] when working more than 12
hours per day, three studies showed a 98 percent increase in
involvement in occupational injury. The results of this study showed
that shift work considerably increased the risk of occupational injury
in the USA . . . Extended working hours was related to elevated risk of
occupational injury'' (emphasis added).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Salminen, Simo. ``Shift Work and Extended Working Hours as Risk
Factors for Occupational Injury.'' The Ergonomics Open Journal, vol. 3,
2010, pp. 14-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No data has been provided to determine the safety benefit of
substituting a full 30-minute off-duty break with the proposed 30-
minute on-duty break. Specifically, the FMCSA has not assessed the
impact of a potential change on worker performance at the end of the
day, whether it is a 14-hour day or a 17-hour that could be achieved if
the split-duty proposal is promulgated.
FMCSA's Proposed Change--Split-Duty Period:
Allow one off-duty break of at least 30 minutes, but no more
than three hours, that would pause a truck driver's 14-hour
working window, provided the driver takes 10 consecutive hours
off-duty at the end of the work shift.
This proposed change would extend a truck driver's day to 17 hours
elapsed time. While there are no studies examining the effect on safety
of this longer day, it is worth reiterating: ``driving time that
occurred later in the driver's workday, due to performing non-driving
tasks earlier in the workday, had a negative safety effect.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Susan A. Soccolich, Myra Blanco, Richard J. Hanowski, Rebecca
L. Olson, Justin F. Morgan, Feng Guo, Shih-Ching Wu. An analysis of
driving and working hour on commercial motor vehicle driver safety
using naturalistic data collection, Accident Analysis & Prevention,
Volume 58, 2013, Pages 249-258
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposal also does not limit the use of the 17-hour window
throughout the workweek. This is extremely troubling considering that
the FMCSA has not studied the effects this will have on cumulative
fatigue, which has been acknowledged as a serious, but ultimately
preventable, safety concern.
Lastly, our organization is concerned that this may be used by high
risk carriers and/or in concert with existing exceptions, like the one
that exists for the transportation of livestock. Used together by a
high risk carrier, this could allow an unsafe truck driver to operate
well over 24 hours continuously because ``time spent working within the
150 air-mile radius does not count toward the driver's daily and weekly
limit.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/hours-service/elds/eld-hours-
service-hos-and-agriculture-exemptions
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each of these proposed changes threatens safety by themselves, but
if they are used in combination and without restrictions on which
carriers may employ them, the results could be devastating. We hope
that the Members of the Subcommittee will urge the FMCSA to immediately
withdraw all five of these proposals.
Exemptions to the HOS Rules for Agricultural Commodities Sacrifice
Safety and Undermine Commercial Motor Vehicle Enforcement
Efforts
Transporters of agricultural commodities and farm supplies for
agricultural purpose already enjoy exceptions to the Hours of Service
and Electronic Logging Devices rules. Unfortunately, efforts by
Congress and inappropriate actions taken by the FMCSA have expanded the
scope of exemptions.
Prior to the enactment of MAP-21, drivers transporting
``agricultural commodities'' and ``farm supplies for agricultural
purposes'' \11\ within a 100 air-mile radius ( 115 miles) were exempt
from the Hours of Service (HOS) regulations. Following enactment of
MAP-21, the regulatory exception was extended to 150 air-mile radius
( 172.5 miles). Then, on May 31, 2018, the FMCSA released regulatory
guidance applicable to all transporters of agricultural commodities, 49
CFR 395.1(k)(1), but does not address ``farm supplies for agricultural
purposes'' under 49 CFR 395.1(k)(2) or (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Quoted terms are defined in 49 CFR 395.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Truck Safety Coalition strongly opposed these past
congressional actions as well as the agency's inappropriate use of
regulatory guidance to further expand the agricultural commodity
exception to life-saving rules that help prevent truck driver fatigue.
Below are critical reasons:
Exemptions to HOS Regulations Weaken Safety--Exemptions to
Federal motor carrier safety regulations compromise safety,
erode uniformity, and weaken enforcement efforts.
Regulatory Changes Cannot Occur Through Issuance of Guidance
--The FMCSA's does not have the legal authority to enact such a
regulatory change through a guidance. The statute and ensuing
regulation denote that the exception for transporters of
agricultural commodities is for drivers engages in trips within
the 150 air-mile radius, not beyond it. Moreover, the guidance
creates a legal definition of source without legislation or a
rulemaking.
The Regulatory Guidance is Unstudied and Unsafe--Permitting
drivers to operate within a 172 mile radius of a source, which
includes not only farms and ranches but also intermediate
storage and loading facilities, during planting and harvesting
periods, which are year round in some states, will contribute
totruck driver fatigue. The public shares the roads with large
trucks, including haulers of agricultural commodities, and
these changes put motorists and truck drivers at risk of death
and serious injury.
The Truck Safety Coalition urges the Members of the Subcommittee to
review the FMCSA's Regulatory Guidance Exempting Transporters of
Agricultural Commodities from Hours of Service and Electronic Logging
Device Mandates, and to oppose any additional efforts to further expand
this dangerous special interest exemption.
Research and Data Clearly Warn About the Dangers of Teenage Truckers
The Truck Safety Coalition strongly oppose efforts to change
Federal requirements to allow drivers under the age of 21 to operate
commercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce for several reasons:
(1) Years of research and data clearly show that 18-20-year-old
drivers have significantly higher crash rates;
(2) The impetus for this change--a shortage of truck drivers--is a
myth perpetuated by those with a pecuniary interest in lowering
the legal age for interstate truck operations;
(3) The FMCSA has not analyzed data from the 48 states that could
provide data on the safety records of 18-20 year old drivers
who currently operate in intrastate commerce;
(4) The So-Called DRIVE-Safe Act is anything but safe. The so-called
protections are meaningless and insufficient.
The Available Data Show that 18-20 Year-Old Drivers are More Likely to
Crash
Research that examined the effect of age on the operation of a
large truck found that commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers under the
age of 19 are four times more likely to be involved in fatal crashes,
and that CMV drivers between the ages of 19 to 20 are six times more
likely to be involved in fatal crashes.\12\ These statistics alone
should stop legislation from moving advancing with this pernicious
policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Campbell, K. L., Fatal Accident Involvement Rates by Driver
Age For Large Trucks, Accid. Anal. & Prev. Vol 23, No. 4, pp. 287-295
(1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, there is even more compelling and convincing data that
show all drivers ages 18 to20 are less safe and more likely to crash
than an older driver. Based on 2017 Federal crash data analyzed by the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, teen drivers ages 18 to 19 are
2.3 times more likely than drivers aged 20 and older (up to age 84) to
be in a fatal crash and nearly 3.5 times more likely to be involved in
any police reported crash.\13\ Moreover, a recent report analyzing 10
years of fatal crash data involving teen drivers from the Governors
Highway Safety Association revealed two other disconcerting data points
about 18 to 20 year old drivers: (1) 19-year-olds accounted for the
greatest number of teen drivers killed during this 10-year period,
followed by 20-and 18-year olds; and, (2) older teens (18-20-years-old)
were twice as likely as their younger counterparts to be involved in a
fatal crash between midnight and 6 a.m.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 2017 FARS Data analyzed by the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety. See data analysis at https://www.iihs.org/topics/teenagers
\14\ Governors Highway Safety Association. 2017. Mission Not
Accomplished: Teen Safe Driving, the Next Chapter https://www.ghsa.org/
sites/default/files/2016-12/FINAL_TeenReport16.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Impetus for This Change--A Shortage of Truck Drivers--is a Myth
Perpetuated by Those with a Pecuniary Interest in Lowering the
Legal Age for Interstate Truck Operations
There is no truck driver shortage. According to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics Report, ``Is the U.S. labor market for truck drivers
broken?'' from September 2018: ``The occupation of truck driving is
often portrayed by the industry and in the popular press as beset by
high levels of turnover and persistent ``labor shortages'' . . . [But]
a deeper look does not find evidence of a secular shortage.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 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, https://doi.org/10.21916/mlr.2019.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, an investigative report by Barron's, ``Busting the
`Truck Shortage' Myth,'' found that the Truck Driver Shortage Analysis
from which this myth derives was ``vague about its methodology, simply
asserting that a shortage exists and will get worse over time as demand
rises and existing truck drivers retire.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Klein, Matthew C. ``Busting the 'Trucker Shortage' Myth.''
Barron's, Barrons, 14 Mar. 2019, www.barrons.com/articles/busting-the-
trucker-shortage-myth-51552589481.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon reading the Barron's expose, the Truck Safety Coalition
reviewed the American Trucking Associations' (ATA) Truck Driver
Shortage Analysis from 2015, 2017, and 2019 as well as The U.S. Truck
Driver Shortage: Analysis and Forecasts prepared for the ATA by Global
Insight, Inc. in May of 2005. While the latter report has formed the
underlying basis on which the shortage myth is predicated, there are
several assumptions the 2005 report makes that did not come to fruition
and should thus call into question the accuracy of any report, study,
or assertion by trucking interests that references it.
The FMCSA Has Not Analyzed Data from the 48 states that Could Provide
Statistics on the Safety Records of 18-20 Year-Old Drivers who
Currently Operate in Intrastate Commerce
Collecting safety data from the 48 states where truck drivers ages
18 to 20 can operate within state lines should be the agency's first
step before moving forward with this potentially risky pilot program.
Doing so would help the agency determine if these 18-20 year old
drivers are, in fact, as safe as or safer than the average truck driver
who operates in interstate commerce.
Currently, all but two states allow teen truck drivers to operate
in intrastate commerce so there should be adequate data on the relative
crash risks of teen truckers that operate within state lines.
For example, the Truck Safety Coalition requested data on truck
driver by age from the state of New York. Their data revealed that from
2009 to 2017, there was a 12.6 percent increase in the total number of
truck drivers involved in crashes within New York, but for truck
drivers age 18-20 involved in crashes in NY that figure jumped 17.8
percent in that same time.\17\ Clearly, figures like this undermine
arguments that younger truck drivers will be as safe as or safer than
older drivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Data retrieved from Institute for Traffic Safety Management &
Research
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The So-Called DRIVE-Safe Act is Anything But Safe. So-called
Protections are Meaningless and Insufficient
The Truck Safety Coalition strongly opposes all efforts to lower
the driving age for interstate trucking, including enactment of the so-
called ``DRIVE-Safe Act'' (H.R. 1374/S. 569).
The probationary period, which is far too short, requires teen
truckers to train on commercial vehicles equipped with certain safety
technologies. While the legislation denotes that these younger, less
safe drivers must learn to operate trucks equipped with automatic
emergency braking (AEB) and heavy vehicle speed limiters, there is
nothing in the bill requiring them to do so after their brief
probation. The consequence of this could be deadly. A teen trucker, who
learned to drive a big-rig where the speed is limited at 65 mph and
equipped AEB may be operating a truck without those technologies.
TSC strongly opposes the FMCSA's pilot program as well as currently
introduced legislation to allow teen truckers to operate in interstate
commerce. In the face of ample research showing that teen drivers are
much less safe and more likely to crash than their older cohorts, the
FMCSA has furnished no evidence that introducing this age demographic
of truck drivers to interstate operations will in any way improve
safety. In fact, the opposite will occur.
Urgent Action Needed Now to Strengthen Truck Safety Rules, Promote
Data-Driven Strategies and Require Proven Safety Technologies
Research and Practice Prove the Effectiveness of Automatic Emergency
Braking and Speed Limiters to Reduce Truck Crash Deaths and
Injuries.
Automatic emergency braking (AEB) is a commercial motor vehicle
safety technology that has been proven through years of use by leading
trucking companies to reduce the number of crashes their truck drivers
are involved in and to mitigate the severity of truck crashes that do
occur.
The Truck Safety Coalition, along with Advocates for Highway and
Auto Safety (Advocates) and the Center for Auto Safety, filed a
petition to initiate a rulemaking that would mandate automatic
emergency braking. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) granted this petition in October of 2015. Since then, several
pieces of legislation, including the Safe Roads Act (H.R. 3773) and the
Protecting Roadside First Responders Act (S. 2700 / H.R. 4871) have
been introduced to require the installation and use of this lifesaving
technology with minimum performance requirements. We commend Sen. Tammy
Duckworth, Ranking Member, of this Subcommittee for her leadership in
co-sponsoring this legislation with Sen. Richard Durbin.
The safety benefits of AEB technology are well known. In the United
States, some motor carriers have been using AEB for at least 10 years
and have established beyond question its effectiveness and reliability.
For example, Con-way (now a part of XPO Logistics) saw reductions in
their rear-end crashes after they equipped their trucks with AEB. The
company performed an internal study to determine the extent to which a
suite of safety technologies (AEB, electronic stability control (ESC),
and lane departure warning) installed on the trucks in its fleet
reduced the frequency of various types of collisions. They found that
trucks equipped with the suite of safety systems had a lower crash rate
and frequency of engagement in risky driving behavior compared to
vehicles without such systems; these trucks exhibited a 71 percent
reduction in rear-end collisions and a 63 percent decrease in unsafe
following behaviors.\18\ Similarly, Schneider National, a major
trucking company, experienced a 69 percent decrease in rear-end crashes
and 95 percent reduction in rear-end collision claims since it began
equipping all new tractors with OnGuard Collision Mitigation Systems in
2012.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ National Transportation Safety Board. 2015. The Use of Forward
Collision Avoidance Systems to Prevent and Mitigate Rear-End Crashes.
Special Investigation Report NTSB/SIR-15-01. Washington, DC.
\19\ Dr. Christopher B. Lofgren, Chief Executive Officer, Schneider
National at Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine
Infrastructure, Safety, and Security Hearing on February 15, 2017,
Moving America: Stakeholder Perspectives on our Multimodal
Transportation System. https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/
index.cfm/hearings?ID=059064F8-8D58-4725-98BC-61CC53DBCB08
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the past, a major concern with requiring this technology had
been cost. Previously cited figures pegged the price of AEB at around
$2,500. However, this figure is grossly inaccurate. A September 2018
study by the NHTSA found that the incremental cost of automatic
emergency braking systems to the end-user (i.e a truck driver) is
$70.80-$316.18.\20\ We expect that when AEB becomes standard equipment
on all newly manufacturer trucks that the cost will drop significantly
as it has with other safety equipment required on cars and buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ NHTSA. September 2018. Cost and Weight Analysis of Heavy
Vehicle Forward Collision Warning (FCW) and Automatic Emergency Braking
(AEB) Systems for Heavy Trucks. Final Report. https://
www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2011-0066-0092
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, there is convincing and evidence confirming that
speed limiters make trucking safer.
This life-saving technology is not new, and has actually been a
standard component in most trucks' engine control modules since the
late 1990s. This is because so many other countries, like Germany,
United Kingdom, and France, already require their use on commercial
motor vehicles. In light of this fact, most trucks in the United States
would not require a retrofit to have this technology but would instead
simply need to have their speed limiter set.
It should not come as a surprise that many of the most profitable
trucking companies voluntarily set their trucks to safe speeds. Speed
limiters also help motor carriers save significant money on fuel as
well as on maintenance costs for tires and brakes, which last longer by
limiting excessive speeding that can exacerbate normal wear and tear.
More importantly, it improves the safety of their fleet and reduces the
maximum potential damage their trucks can cause in the event they do
crash.
The research confirms what these trucking companies know from
practice: speed limiters make trucks safer. The FMCSA's own road-based
study from 2012 found that heavy trucks not using their speed limiters
were involved in highway-speed crashes at twice the rate of those using
them.
Several years later, the Province of Ontario conducted a study to
review the effectiveness of requiring large trucks to use speed
limiters. The Province found that the incidence of heavy trucks
speeding in a crash dropped a dramatic 73 percent following
implementation of the speed limiter mandate. Another important finding
of this study was that it directly debunked the claim that speed
differentials would lead to an increase in overall crashes involving
big rigs. In fact, the study found no evidence of such an increase.
Increasing the Minimum Levels of Insurance Required by Motor Carriers
is Long Overdue. Too Many Families Have Suffered Since 1980.
The minimum level of insurance of $750,000 for commercial motor
carriers has not been increased in the U.S. in 40 years. Neither has it
been adjusted for inflation or, more appropriately, for medical cost
inflation. Consequently, some families not only face the physical and
emotion hardship of losing a loved one but also the financial
devastation caused by under-insured motor carriers.
According to the legislative intent of the Motor Carrier Act of
1980 (Pub. L 96-296), minimum levels of insurance were meant to serve
as a barrier to entry for unsafe carriers and to shift the burden of
oversight from the government to the private sector (i.e., the
insurers). Sadly, insurers fail to apply appropriate scrutiny because
the amounts are so abysmally low.
In order to remedy this issue, we urge Senate introduction of a
companion bill to the INSURANCE Act (H.R. 3781), which increases this
minimum to account for medical cost inflation and then index it to that
measure every five years. Since 1980, truck weight limits have
increased significantly as have speed limits for trucks; the
combination of these two changes has resulted in an increase in crash
severity.
Strengthening Rear Underride Guards and Requiring Side Underride Guards
are Long Overdue.
In a truck underride crash, a passenger vehicle travels under the
trailer, bypassing the crumple zone and airbag deployment safety
features. As you can imagine, or if you've seen this type of crash, the
results are catastrophic, especially when passenger compartment
intrusion occurs. In order to prevent this type of collision, trailers
can be equipped with energy-absorbing rear and side underride guards
that would protect car occupants from going underneath at certain
speeds.
While rear underride guards are required, crash tests conducted by
the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) clearly demonstrate
that the rear underride guards mandated for trailers by NHTSA in 1998
performed poorly. Furthermore, there are underride guards available
today that far exceed the proposed force requirement by up to 70
percent.
In light of this important finding coupled with the known safety
benefits of rear underride guards, there has been a recent push to
strengthen the requirements for rear underride guards in the U.S. After
two Roundtable events hosted at IIHS, which brought together safety
advocates, engineers, and trucking interests, major progress on rear
underrides has occurred in two ways: (1) Eight out of the eight leading
trailer manufacturers have developed rear underride guards that qualify
for the IIHS ToughGuard rating, which greatly exceeds the existing
Federal standard by preventing underride crashes at 100, 50, and 30
percent overlaps at 35 mph, and (2) there is growing consensus in
support, evidenced by Mr. Pugh noting just last week that ``We [OOIDA]
agree to the rear guards. We don't have a problem with that.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/investigations/underrides/
truckers-open-to-tougher-underride-standards-with-a-catch/65-ffa5d38f-
b7b6-48aa-9eba-6ee139a78718
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We urge Senate passage of bi-partisan legislation, the Stop
Underrides Act (S. 665), which would not only strengthen the
requirement for rear underride guards, but would comprehensively
improve underride protections on all sides of a tractor-trailer. This
bill is sponsored by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and co-sponsored by many
Members of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee including
Sen. Tammy Duckworth, Sen. Ed Markey, Sen. Tom Udall, Sen. Gary Peters
and Sen. Richard Blumenthal.
Conclusion
On behalf of the Truck Safety Coalition and our volunteers, I urge
Congress to advance these bills and provide the much-needed actions and
oversight to improving truck safety. To rollback truck safety
protections and pass bills that degrade safety will lead to more
crashes, deaths, injuries and costs. Before this week is over nearly
100 people will needlessly die in a truck crash, the equivalent of a
major airplane crash and hundreds of families will mourn the loss of a
loved one just like I did when my father was killed.
The families of victims and survivors of large truck crashes remain
hopeful that Members of this Subcommittee will ensure that safety never
takes a back seat to profits or political pressure. Too many families
in your states and across the country are depending on you to make the
right decision to keep us safe as we share the roads with large trucks.
To close, I want to take this opportunity to wish my dad a happy
birthday. Had he not been needlessly killed by a tired trucker 15 years
ago, he would have turned 91 years old today. I love you Dad.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today and I am
pleased to answer your questions.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Ms. King. Next, I would like to
introduce Chris Spear, the President and CEO of the American
Trucking Associations, which represents the 50 state trucking
associations and other trucking industry stakeholders. Welcome,
Mr. Spear.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS SPEAR, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATION
Mr. Spear. Thanks, Chairman Fischer, Ranking Member
Duckworth, and Subcommittee members. For 87 years, ATA remains
the largest national trade organization representing the
trucking industry. With affiliates in all 50 states, our
membership encompasses over 34,000 motor carriers and
suppliers, represents every sector of the industry, and 80
percent of ATA membership is comprised of small carriers.
Trucking moves 70 percent of the Nation's freight tonnage worth
over $10 trillion.
More than 80 percent of U.S. communities rely exclusively
on trucks for their freight needs. The trucking industry is 7.7
million people strong, accounting for one in every 18 jobs in
the U.S., where a truck driver is the top job in 29 States. My
written testimony focuses on safety and technology, workforce
development, and infrastructure, and it is grounded in data.
From 1980 to 2017, America witnessed a 71 percent drop in
combination truck involved fatal crashes, yet fatalities on our
Nation's highways climbed in recent years. We can and we must
do better. The cause is clear, distracted driving. Seventy
percent of large truck crashes had no truck driver related
factors recorded, fueled largely by the growing addiction to
speeding and texting.
Technology is key: including ELDs, cameras, automated
emergency braking, and adaptive cruise control. Like pilots and
planes, we will continue to see drivers in trucks, a future
based not on driverless technology, but driver-assist
solutions. We applaud the Secretary of Transportation for her
leadership on technology, including preserving the seven bands
of 5.9-gigahertz spectrum for safety, connecting cars, trucks,
and infrastructure using AEB to save lives. The FCC wants to
hand this spectrum to big cable so you can download YouTube
videos faster. Please stop the shameless assault on public
safety.
We need more tools to populate the FMCSA's drug and alcohol
clearinghouse, including technology that detects marijuana
impairment. Employers must be allowed to use hair testing as a
sole screening method. It has been three years since this
Committee instructed HHS to issue such rules. Sounds to me like
a few cubicle dwelling bureaucrats are now thumbing their noses
at you and public safety by keeping this scientifically proven
and successfully deployed method from enforcing the law that
you passed. They need to be held accountable.
Trucking is now short 60,800 drivers and must hire 1.1
million new drivers over the next decade, made harder by a 50-
year low unemployment. We need more women, minorities,
veterans, exiting service men and women, and a focus on
improving the safety and health and wellness of our current
workforce. We need access to the next generation of drivers.
Forty-nine states currently allow an 18-year-old to drive a
Class A commercial vehicle, making it legal to drive an 850
miles stretch of California, yet it is federally illegal to
drive from Providence, Rhode Island to Rehoboth, Massachusetts,
a mere 10 miles.
The heavily bipartisan DRIVE-Safe Act would require 400
hours of apprenticeship training and safety technology. Forty-
nine states require none of this, making the DRIVE-Safe Act a
step towards safety and ATA recommends its immediate passage.
Lastly, America cannot lead with a Third World infrastructure.
Trucking is 4 percent of the vehicles on our roads. We pay half
the tab into the highway trust fund and are willing to pay
more. Here is why.
Trucking now losses $70 billion each year sitting in
congestion. That is 425,000 drivers sitting idle for an entire
year, 67 million tons of CO2 being emitted.
Passenger vehicle drivers now lose $1,600 a year due to traffic
and repairs. These are the costs of doing nothing.
Under ATA's Build America Fund, one nickel, one nickel a
year for 4 years would generate $340 billion in new revenue,
shoring up the soon to go broke highway trust fund without
adding a dime to the deficit. It is immediate. It is
conservative. Less than $0.01 on the dollar to administer it
versus $0.35 on the dollar for tolls. Business and labor are
100 percent behind the Build America Fund, and you passing it
would be a major victory for America's roads and the millions
of voters that use them each day. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Spear follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chris Spear, President and Chief Executive
Officer, American Trucking Associations
Chairman Fischer, Ranking Member Duckworth, 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 improving the safety and efficiency of our
Nation's highways. The trucking industry stands ready to work hand-in-
hand with this subcommittee, Congress, and the Administration to assist
in the development of a well-funded surface transportation
reauthorization bill, and bring an end to the continuous cycle of
underinvestment in our Nation's 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATA is an 87-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 Less-than-
Truckload 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 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 carriers. And, our
federation has members in every state, congressional district and
community.
Trucking is the focal point of 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. 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 trucking-related
occupations, accounting for 1 in every 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 fail to
thrive and flourish, and would lack key necessities including food and
drinking water; there would not be clothes to purchase, nor parts to
build automobiles and 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 everyday Americans and the millions of businesses that could
not exist without trucks.
We appreciate the subcommittee's focus today on the trucking
industry, as it is the nexus connecting infrastructure, interstate
commerce and safety. As Congress looks towards the next surface
transportation reauthorization bill, many of the topics addressed today
will shape the drafting of a legislative and regulatory framework that
trucking will operate under in the years to come.
The trucking industry is on the cusp of a transformation in the
movement of freight-one that you and your colleagues will lead and
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, which 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.
For the purpose of this hearing, I will focus my testimony on three
key areas that will have the greatest and most immediate impact on the
trucking industry: (1) Safety and Technology; (2) Workforce
Development; and (3) Infrastructure.
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 unquestionably of paramount importance. Safety,
which anchors the foundation of the trucking industry, shapes our core
values and decision-making. That is why the trucking industry invests
approximately $10 billion annually in safety initiatives, including
onboard vehicle technologies such as electronic logging devices,
collision avoidance systems, and video-event recorders. Investments
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.
Chairman Fischer and Ranking Member Duckworth, the below section
highlights the trucking industry's safety record, and the many ways in
which our members continually work to improve upon it. Our members work
persistently 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, data-driven countermeasures the
highest priority.
b 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 example, 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.
ATA members support the use and deployment of additional
initiatives that will improve safety, such as a 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 create a safer environment for all.
And in a recent example of our ongoing commitment to safety, this
past fall ATA updated its decade-old speed governing policy to reflect
a more holistic approach on speed governing that recognizes safety
technologies widely deployed in fleets today. The updated policy
includes provisions for the use of Automatic Emergency Braking and
Adaptive Cruise Control technology. Further, the policy includes a
direction that the Department of Transportation conduct a recurring 5
year review of speed governing regulations to ensure that the
regulations are appropriate and consistent with currently deployed
technologies. Through this new policy, ATA believes that the
development and promotion of important safety technologies, coupled
with speed control measures, will result in the greatest positive
impact on road safety.
b TRUCK CRASH CAUSATION STUDY AND CRASH DATA:
For the trucking industry to continue improving upon our safety
record, we must focus more research and attention on the causes of
truck-involved crashes, with a particular emphasis on countermeasures.
Specifically, according to multiple studies, data, and other
indicators, the vast majority of large truck-involved crashes are the
result of driver behavior 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2019 when I testified before the House Transportation &
Infrastructure Subcommittee on Highways & Transit, I reiterated ATA's
desire for an updated Large Truck Crash Study. ATA was pleased to see
FMCSA's recent announcement that it will conduct a Large Truck Crash
Causal Factors Study (LTCCFS).\10\ It has been nearly 15 years since
the last major investigation into the causes of, and contributing
factors to, crashes involving commercial motor vehicles. In the
intervening time, data has shown an uptick in the rates of truck-
involved crashes.\11\ To better understand this increase, we need
accurate data that can direct our efforts and resources to deploy
appropriate countermeasures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 85 Fed. Reg. 2481 (January 15, 2020).
\11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATA plans to coordinate with FMCSA to design a study that can be an
effective tool in evaluating the causal factors contributing to truck-
involved accidents. At this juncture, we particularly highlight the
need for FMCSA to use a sufficiently large sample size that includes
all segments of our industry and reflects real-world applications.
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.
Just as a LTCCFS 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 of
those 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 the 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.
b ELECTRONIC LOGGING DEVICES:
ATA was pleased to see the ELD rule go into full effect last
December and adamantly opposes any legislative efforts that seek to
undermine it. Many ATA members have used ELDs long before initial
implementation of the ELD rule in December 2017. 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 requirement that was fully litigated, widely
debated, congressionally-mandated, and reaffirmed by FMCSA's denial of
several ELD exemption requests.\12\ Compared to the outdated pen and
paper methods of tracking driver hours, ELDs are a modern-day
technology that have proven to be more accurate, easier to enforce,
more difficult to falsify, and--most importantly--have and will
continue to save lives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 83 Fed. Reg. 63194 (December 7, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 a strong 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 hours-of-
service (HOS) rules that have been in place since the early 2000s. The
requirements governing 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.
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 the violation rate prior to ELD
enforcement.\13\ Now that the ELD grandfather period--allowing fleets
to use Automatic Onboard Recording Devices (AOBRD) in lieu of an ELD--
has come and gone, fleets have adopted the required technology and are
compliant. We note, for example, that due to FMCSA's partnership with
industry to conduct an effective awareness campaign, the final deadline
for enforcement passed largely without consequence. And since April 1,
2018, less than 1 percent of the over 5 million driver roadside
inspections have resulted in a driver being cited for not having an ELD
or grandfathered AOBRD.\14\ 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.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Electronic
Logging Device Hours-of-Service Violation Information Graphic.
Retrieved January 27, 2020, from https://eld.fmcsa.dot.gov/File/Open/
18f45f72-df16-e41b-e053-0100007fe49a.
\14\ Ibid.
\15\ 79 Fed. Reg. 27041 (May 12, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b 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 regarding the need for greater 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 increased HOS
flexibility to provide drivers the ability to adjust to changing road
and weather conditions, congestion and sensitive truck loads.
As such, ATA applauds FMCSA's recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM), which, in various ways, will give drivers the flexibility
necessary to safely and efficiently manage operations. As FMCSA
advances this NPRM to a final rulemaking, ATA emphasizes that any new
flexibilities should be based on sound evidence and sufficient data to
assure safety. Data that supports how changes to HOS improve safety
is--and should always be--foremost in any rulemaking. 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 final
rulemaking, we caution the subcommittee on dangerous and reactive
legislation that is not grounded in safety, science or data, such as
S.1255, the Transporting Livestock Across America Safely Act. 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, threaten the safety of the
motoring public traveling on our highways, and should be rejected
outright by this subcommittee and Congress.
b EMPLOYER NOTIFICATION SYSTEM:
ATA believes 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, and this check 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.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 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. The
pilot program, tested in Colorado and Minnesota, allowed motor carriers
to register, with the driver's express permission, which enabled them
to receive timely electronic notification of driver 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 advocates for a
national ENS system.
b DRUG AND ALCOHOL CLEARINGHOUSE:
Since the late 1990s, ATA has supported the establishment of a
database to close a known loophole in existing regulations that allows
CDL drivers who test positive for prohibited substances to escape the
consequences of their actions. As a result of the 2012 highway
reauthorization legislation (MAP-21), FMCSA published a final rule in
December 2016 creating a Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse that would act
as a central repository for drug and alcohol violations of CDL drivers,
allowing carriers to search this clearinghouse when hiring a driver for
the first time and on an annual basis. On January 6, 2020, the
clearinghouse became operational; however, it experienced significant
connectivity issues due to the high number of users accessing the
system. FMCSA has worked to address these issues, and on January 22,
2020, announced the system had been returned to full functionality.
However, given these initial difficulties, ATA urges Congress to
take the necessary steps ensure the problems experienced during the
initial rollout of the clearinghouse do not reoccur, and that any
current or future problems are resolved expeditiously. Furthermore,
FMCSA should address what steps are being taken to ensure a high level
of compliance with the clearinghouse requirements from both a motor
carrier and laboratory reporting standpoint.
b COMPLIANCE, SAFETY, ACCOUNTABILITY:
Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) was launched by FMCSA in
2010 as a way to use data to streamline enforcement programs and target
the least safe motor carriers for enforcement intervention. Since its
inception, the methodology behind CSA ``scores'' have been called into
question with regard to their correlation with future crash risk. The
relationship between scores and crash risk is a reflection of the many
methodology and data problems that plague the system. These include the
flawed weighting of violations, a lack of data on a large portion of
the motor carrier population, and the scoring of carriers on all
crashes they are involved in, regardless of fault. In light of these
issues, Congress requested that both the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) and the DOT Inspector General's (I.G.) office conduct
reviews of the CSA program and its scoring methodology. Both entities
confirmed that the system is still grappling with serious flaws. In
December 2015, Congress passed the FAST Act, which removed motor
carrier's CSA scores from public view while the National Academies of
Science (NAS) conducted a thorough review of CSA.\17\ The FAST Act also
stipulated that FMCSA must prepare a corrective action plan to address
the shortcomings identified by the study and remove carriers' CSA
scores from public view until the study and resulting implementation
plan were completed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
2017. Improving Motor Carrier Safety Measurement. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/24818.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2018, FMCSA released their corrective action plan
responding to the NAS review of CSA.\18\ FMCSA indicated that they
would pursue a different methodology, known as an Item Response Theory
(IRT), and would conduct testing of the IRT methodology to determine
its accuracy in identifying motor carriers who are at risk for future
crashes. As of the date of this testimony, the agency has yet to
implement any changes to the CSA program. Motor carriers seek changes
to this program so that they are not mischaracterized by a flawed
scoring system that has proven ineffective in identifying unsafe
carriers. Congress should continue to monitor FMCSA's corrective
actions, and ensure that any changes to the CSA system are available
for stakeholder review and comment, prior to implementation. During the
period of time that such changes are made, CSA scores should continue
to remain hidden from public view.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The National Academy of Sciences Correlation Study, Corrective
Action Plan Report to Congress. Retrieved January 27, 2020, from
https://cms8.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/mission/
policy/407251/nas-correlation-study-corrective-action-plan-enclosure-
final-june-2018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b 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 incentivize 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
as part of the FAST Act. 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 3 years overdue.
However, ATA is encouraged that HHS is finally working to address the
Congressional mandate by sending proposed guidelines to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act Sec. 5402, (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The development of standards by HHS will pave the way for regulated
employers to use this testing method and allow them to identify a
higher number of safety-sensitive employees who violate both Federal
drug testing and medical qualification 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
now-implemented Commercial Driver's License Drug and Alcohol
Clearinghouse.
ATA applauds the Commerce Committee for continuing to take a
proactive approach on this issue, most recently considering and
approving S.2979, the Preventing Opioid and Drug Impairment in
Transportation. The legislation requires Federal entities to study
impaired driving countermeasures and to provide employers with the
necessary tools to deter prohibited drug use. That includes a
requirement for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) to investigate ways to better detect and reduce impaired
driving, and a requirement for the U.S. DOT to lead a study on the use
of roadside oral fluid drug screening. The bill also works to advance
the long-overdue development of Federal hair testing guidelines by
requiring status updates from both the Office of Management and Budget
and the Department of Health and Human Services.
ATA urges Congress and this subcommittee to apply 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 a correlated 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.
b MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION & IMPLICATIONS FOR ROAD SAFETY:
The recent marijuana legalization efforts have uniquely challenged
our industry, and have led to critical issues of workplace and highway
safety. Since 1991, DOT has required mandatory alcohol and controlled
substance drug testing for employees in safety-sensitive positions in
all transportation modes. As states move to legalize marijuana, the
trucking industry, just like the rest of American society, is
evaluating and considering changes with respect to marijuana laws. Our
members also recognize that public opinion toward marijuana
legalization has dramatically shifted over the last two decades.
However, trends and popular opinion don't always lead to good policy,
and while debates about decriminalization are timely, policies that
limit employer drug testing programs to the detriment of transportation
safety will result in more crashes, injuries, and fatalities.
An example of this can be found in S.2227, the Marijuana
Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act of 2019,
legislation also introduced in the House and recently approved by the
House Judiciary Committee. While well-intentioned, the MORE Act
neglects to recognize the significant impact removing marijuana from
the schedule of controlled substances will have on both highway and
workplace safety. Unlike with alcohol, there is no national enforceable
impairment standard for marijuana. With no established consensus on an
impairment threshold, employers are unable to measure levels of
impairment, which complicates our industry's best efforts to maintain
road and workplace safety. Employers must be able to test for marijuana
as a condition of employment, especially when an employee's use could
adversely impact the safety of our Nation's roads, bridges, and
motoring public. Before Congress legalizes recreational marijuana use,
Congress must consider the safety implications of this legislation by
establishing the necessary tools to protect highway and workplace
safety. We stand ready to assist Congress in this timely effort.
b AUTOMATED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES:
As I have testified before the Commerce Committee in the past, the
trucking industry remains firmly supportive of automated vehicle (AV)
technologies, which we believe will help make our industry's workplace,
the roads and bridges crisscrossing this country, safer. For decades,
truck manufacturers and suppliers have improved safety and efficiency
technologies that demonstrate real improvements to freight
transportation and lifesaving goals. As technical solutions have grown,
and as costs have become more reasonable, policymakers and regulators
are trying to catch up to the market-driven innovation and
proliferating technologies. New technology companies and traditional
equipment suppliers are also developing automated and connected vehicle
technology specifically for the trucking industry, further accelerating
the development of commercial motor vehicles equipped with automated
driving systems (ADS).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the full impact of automated vehicles on workforce training
and labor regulation is 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 completely
``driverless'' for the trucking industry, but instead a vital driver-
assist tool in monitoring and operating freight deliveries. We expect
that there will continue to be a role for drivers in trucking for the
foreseeable future and have confidence in how the role of drivers with
automation will be modified and adjusted as the technologies continue
to advance.
ATA also believes that it is crucial to include the trucking
industry in any regulatory or legislative framework that directs the
development and testing of automated vehicle technologies. ATA
continues to engage with the FMCSA and other agencies within U.S. DOT,
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 developed. ATA continues to work with
State Trucking Associations, state legislators, and transportation
officials as policies, regulations, and research emanate from cities,
states, universities, and businesses. As a founding member of the
Partnership for Transportation Innovation & Opportunity, ATA has also
engaged with other stakeholders to study and address workforce issues
related to automated trucks. Additionally, the safety impacts of
automated or assisted braking and steering systems are being studied
and will likely show significant improvements in mitigating crashes and
injuries.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the Commerce Committee continues to pursue comprehensive AV
legislation in conjunction with the House Energy & Commerce Committee,
we caution that ATA cannot support legislative endeavors that fail to
take a multi-modal approach to AV legislation. Legislation creating a
Federal role overseeing the advancement, development and deployment of
automated vehicle technologies should capture all road users, including
passenger vehicles, commercial trucks, buses, pedestrians and
bicyclists, as well as the supporting infrastructure.
b CONNECTIVITY & 5.9 GHz TRANPSORATION SAFETY SPECTRUM:
The safety benefits from advancing automated truck technology also
parallels the importance of intelligent transportation systems. Plans
for 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.\22\ Much work has been done by Federal and state
governments, research institutions, technical standards organizations,
and technology companies to develop V2X protocols and applications for
single and combination vehicles.\23\ These V2X technologies are
dependent on a 5.9 GHz spectrum that remains dedicated to vehicle
safety applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 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.
\23\ (October 4, 2018). Preparing for the Future of Transportation
Automated Vehicles 3.0. Retrieved from https://www.transportation.gov/
av/3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, recent actions taken by the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) to reallocate the 5.9 GHz spectrum would turn back the
clock on highway safety. The proposal released by the FCC in December
2019 rejects the foresight the Commission demonstrated when originally
allocating spectrum for improving traveler safety, decreasing traffic
congestion, and reducing air pollution. Rather, this new proposal seeks
to increase the already large spectrum allocation for Wi-Fi so that it
can be used for connecting our TVs, thermostats, baby monitors,
refrigerators, washing machines, toys, and even toilets, because the
FCC believes that connected consumer devices are evolving quickly and
are more widely deployed than the vehicle communications services in
the 5.9 GHz spectrum. It should be no surprise that developing and
deploying technology to allow cars and trucks from different
manufacturers to communicate critical safety information with each
other as well as with pedestrians, cyclists, traffic signals, work
zones, and other roadway infrastructure while traveling at highway
speeds and in traffic jams would evolve more slowly than connected
household devices. This is not a reasonable justification for
prioritizing faster Internet speeds for connecting consumer devices and
streaming infotainment over saving lives and reducing the environmental
impact of our transportation system.
It is also disappointing to see how little regard the FCC's
proposal shows for the significant work and investment by industry and
all levels of government to develop and deploy technology to improve
the safety and efficiency of our transportation system under the
existing FCC rules. The FCC's proposal effectively throws out the one
technology -DSRC--that has already been deployed in the 5.9 GHz
spectrum, and severely limits the bandwidth available for the evolution
of an alternative technology--Cellular Vehicle to Everything (C-V2X).
Furthermore, the proposal jettisons the work done in good faith to test
concepts that would retain the 5.9 GHz spectrum for vehicle safety
communications while allowing for sharing with unlicensed devices,
``despite the fact that ongoing testing has shown promising results.''
\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Ibid. paragraph 10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FCC's proposal to reallocate the 5.9 GHz band shows a clear
bias toward supporting unlicensed operations, while seeking to avoid
the need to require use of dynamic frequency selection interference
mitigation technologies for the reallocated spectrum.\25\ Contrast this
to the proposal's treatment of incumbent DSRC and potential future C-
V2X operations in the 5.9 GHz band, which would be severely curtailed
and subject to harmful interference from the effectively unfettered Wi-
Fi and other unlicensed use that would be allowed to operate in
adjacent channels.\26\ The proposal seems predestined to ultimately
result in a full takeover of the band for unlicensed use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Ibid, paragraph 17.
\26\ DOT, NHTSA, Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communications Research Project
(V2V-CR), Pre-Final Version, (Dec. 2019), available at https://
www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/v2v-
cr_dsrc_wifi_baseline_cross-
channel_interference_test_report_pre_final_dec_2019-121219-v1-tag.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATA has long sought to advance the deployment of wireless
communication technologies as a means of improving road safety and
connectivity while reducing crash risk and road fatalities. ATA
strongly believes that retaining the full 75 MHz spectrum of the 5.9
GHz band for V2X technology to improve safety and reduce traffic
congestion and emissions is the right policy outcome, and this position
has broad support as noted recently by the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I).\27\ ATA concurs with the T&I
Committee's recommendation that the FCC reconsider its approach in the
NPRM. ATA further recommends that the FCC coordinate more closely with
DOT to better understand and account for the implications that changes
to the existing rules in 5.9 GHz band would have for transportation
safety before taking further action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Letter to Chairman Pai and Commissioners O'Rielly, Carr,
Rosenworcel, and Starks, (Jan. 22, 2020), available at https://
transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/2020-01-22%20
Full%20TI%20Letter%20to%20FCC.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b 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 guard'' on the
trucking industry. Introduced in both the House \28\ and Senate \29\,
the Stop Underrides Act calls for mandating these devices on the sides
and front of virtually all commercial vehicles, including the
retrofitting of already manufactured and in-service vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1511/
all-info.
\29\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/665.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This legislation 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 identified
safety benefit. Moreover, it ignores potential technical issues a
mandate of this nature raises, as well as the other technologies that
address 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. Advocates for mandating
side underride guards have reiterated that these devices have been
tested. To our knowledge, the only testing that has been accomplished
involves a closed course, at well below highway speeds, during
perpendicular side impact crashes into a stationary trailer. In 2019,
ATA staff witnessed firsthand that these crash tests were successful in
stopping the vehicle from penetrating underneath the side of the
trailer within a controlled test environment. What we have not
witnessed is the results of a crash during a realistic highway
scenario--at highway speeds, with a moving truck and trailer, and with
other traffic and road environment factors present. For instance, a
concern remains that a side underride guard may successfully stop a
passenger car from going underneath the trailer, but the potential for
that car to bounce off the underride guard and trailer and strike other
vehicles is a realistic scenario that needs to be addressed via
research, and not conjecture.
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 specifically
designed chassis for hauling. Simply put, these glaring operational
concerns do not signify real world applicability, nor do they justify
an industry-wide mandate.
The Stop Underrides Act also places focus solely on mitigating a
crash after it has happened, as compared to focusing on efforts--such
as safety technologies that are available today--on preventing the
crash from happening in the first place. All parties should be focused
on crash avoidance that can be achieved by enhancing vehicle-to-vehicle
(V2V) connectivity. 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 percent of light duty vehicle crashes.\30\ NHTSA is
currently also conducting research on V2V for heavy vehicles and
estimates that 70 percent of crashes involving trucks occurred in
scenarios that could be addressed by V2V systems.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 82 Fed. Reg. 3863 (January 17, 2017).
\31\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. In
testimony provided at the June 2019 ``State of Trucking in America''
hearing before the House T&I Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
advocates for the Stop Underrides Act stated 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.''
\32\ Equipping the estimated 12 million trailers with a side underride
guard, identified in testimony as costing $2,900 would equate to
approximately $34.8 billion spent on underride guards. This 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, this
mandate would exceed the industry's annual net revenue, essentially
putting trucking out of business and grinding our economy to a halt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ (June 12, 2019). Retrieved from: https://
transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Testimony-Young.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 legislative mandates like the Stop
Underrides Act detract from our shared goal of improved safety.
2) WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT:
b THE DRIVE SAFE ACT IS NEEDED TO EXPAND THE DRIVING WORKFORCE:
It is no secret that the trucking industry is currently
experiencing a significant, nationwide shortage of qualified drivers.
This fact is overwhelmingly supported by legitimate data. The driver
shortage is real, as the Nation is short 60,800 truck drivers today,
and over the next decade will need to hire nearly 1.1 million total new
drivers to account for increasing demand and the industry's aging
workforce.\33\ Therefore, ATA urges this subcommittee and Congress to
address this growing problem now by enacting the DRIVE Safe Act (S.569,
H.R. 1374). This legislation is a common-sense solution that eliminates
the obsolete regulatory barriers preventing capable, qualified
Americans from entering the trucking workforce. Moreover, the DRIVE
Safe Act is not just a workforce replenishment tool--it's a job
creation and safety enhancement bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Id. The average age of a truck driver is 49, 7 years older
than that of the typical U.S. worker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. This bill would lower the minimum age
requirement for the interstate operation of commercial motor vehicles
from 21 to 18--but only for properly qualified apprentices who:
(1) satisfy a minimum of 400 hours of training and 11 performance
benchmarks;
(2) complete those hours of training under the supervision of an
experienced driver; and
(3) train in trucks equipped with technology and enhanced safety
features, such as Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB), event
recorders/cameras, speed-limiters, and automatic transmissions.
Current law permits an 18-year-old to drive a truck over 850 miles
from San Diego, California to Crescent City, California. 18-year-olds
are also legally able to drive a truck over 830 miles from Brownsville,
Texas to Perryton, Texas. However, 18-year-olds are prohibited from
driving a truck from Providence, Rhode Island to Rehoboth,
Massachusetts--a mere 10 miles. As this subcommittee is aware, forty-
nine states and the District of Columbia already allow 18, 19, and 20-
year-old CDL holders to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
intrastate commerce. Given that forty-nine states and the District of
Columbia have already determined that 18 to 20-year-old drivers do not
inherently pose a significant safety risk to other intrastate
motorists, it defies logic that these same 18 to 20-year-olds are
legally unable to drive across state lines.
The notion that 18 to 20-year-old drivers lack the general
maturity, skill, and judgment necessary to operate a CMV is erroneously
dismissive and discriminatory. As the subcommittee is aware, 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.\34\ Despite myriad examples of 18, 19, and
20-year-old members of the Armed Services with whom we entrust our
national security and defense, the nay-sayers argue, that there is
something intrinsic about 18, 19, and 20-year-olds (often characterized
derisively as ``teens and novices'') that renders them inherently
unsafe--and thus, categorically incapable of learning how to operate
CMVs safely in interstate commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ National U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier Month, 2018 Talking
Points, https://aircraftcarrier.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Talking-
Points-2018.pdf, at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2015, Congress correctly and soundly rejected this notion when
it passed the FAST Act, which was signed by President Obama on December
4, 2015--mandating, among other things, language championed by Chairman
Fischer, the Under 21 Military Pilot Program.\35\ The very premise of
the Under 21 Military Pilot is the recognition that certain 18, 19, and
20-year-olds, with proper training, can learn how to operate CMVs
safely in interstate commerce. ATA fully supports and agrees with this
premise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 83 Fed. Reg. 31633 (July 6, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, building off of this premise, ATA also agrees with FMCSA
that the training provided by the military for 18, 19, and 20-year-olds
serving in the seven Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) codes \36\
identified by FMCSA for the purposes of the Under 21 Military Pilot
Program is effective in vetting, teaching, and preparing qualified
service members to operate CMVs safely in interstate commerce as 18,
19, and 20-year-old civilians. Consistent with these views, ATA
believes that the enhanced training standards of the DRIVE Safe Act can
be equally effective as the training provided in the seven MOS codes
referenced above, in vetting, teaching, and preparing qualified 18, 19,
and 20-year-old non-military drivers to operate CMVs safely in
interstate commerce. Given the many similarities between the training
regimen of those seven MOS codes and the training regimen of the DRIVE
Safe Act,\37\ Congress should have a similar level of ex ante
confidence in the safety prospects of the latter as the level of ex
ante confidence Congress expressed in mandating the former.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 88M Motor Transport Operator (Army); 92F Fueler (Army); 2T1
Vehicle Operations (Air Force); 2Fo Fueler (Air Force); 3E2 Pavement
and Construction Equipment (Air Force); E.O. Equipment Operator (Navy);
and 3531 Motor Vehicle Operator (Marine Corps).
\37\ E.g. Training Hours (160 hours minimum for the 7 MOS versus
400 hours minimum for DRIVE Safe); both training regiments require
Performance Based Training, and Supervised Training, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b TRAINING--NOT AGE--IS PARAMOUNT:
For the past twenty years,\38\ opponents of 18-20 year old drivers
have recycled severely flawed, limited, and outdated data--largely
relying upon on a single study released 28 years ago in 1991 by K.L.
Campbell (``the Campbell Study'')\39\ to justify the proposition that
``CMV drivers under the age of 21 are over-involved in fatal crashes by
a factor of six when compared to older drivers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ OOIDA, May 21, 2001, Docket ID FMCSA-2000-8410-1608, https://
www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-2000-8410-1608, at 8; Advocates of
Highway and Auto Safety, May 21, 2001, Docket ID FMCSA-2000-8410-1466,
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-2000-8410-1466, at 4; Todd
Spencer, OOIDA, August 9, 2019, Docket ID FMCSA-2018-0346-1020, https:/
/www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-2018-0346-1020; Under Pressure:
The State of Trucking in America; Hearing before the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit, House, 116th Cong. (June 12, 2019) (Testimony of Cathy Chase,
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety), https://
transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Testimony-Chase.pdf.
\39\ Kenneth L. Campbell, Fatal Accident Involvement Rates By
Driver Age for Large Trucks, University of Michigan Transportation
Research Institute (September 1990), https://deepblue
.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/29197/
0000251.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the subcommittee may be interested to know that Campbell
himself warned that his study was a mere estimate of accident rates
that were calculated using an admittedly incomplete, non-matching batch
of ``data'' from 1980-84 and from 1986 that was of insufficient sample
size and obtained in part via telephone survey estimates.\40\ He
explicitly cautioned: When considering possible conclusions based on
the results of these analyses, the reader must remember the mismatch in
time periods between the involvements and the travel.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Campbell, at 290. Specifically, Campbell was very careful to
caution the following: (1) ``Since the travel survey was mostly
conducted in 1986, the time period for the exposure does not match the
time period of the accidents . . ..''; (2) ``Obviously, it would have
been more desirable to have travel data for the same period of time as
the involvements, but the availability of funding and other problems
preclude a better match at this time.''; and (3) ``It will be another
year before the 1986 TIFA file is complete, and several years of
accident data are needed to produce sufficient sample sizes.''.
\41\ Id. at 2 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only other CMV-specific ``data'' that opponents of 18, 19, and
20-year-old drivers consistently cite is derived from a 1996 study by
Daniel Blower (``the Blower Study''),\42\ which similarly relies on
flawed, limited, and outdated data. Specifically, the Blower Study:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Daniel Blower, The Accident Experience of Younger Truck
Drivers, Great Lakes Center for Truck and Transit Research (May 1996),
https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/1147.
was limited to data from Michigan, supplemented by data from
North Carolina ``because of certain [unspecified] problems with
the Michigan data;'' \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ ibid
conflated two age group which FMCSA separates out in the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under 21 Military Pilot as the control and test groups; and
purposely compared--i.e. cherry-picked--this conflated group
of younger drivers against the group of drivers in the flattest
part of the accident curve.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ First, Blower simultaneously claims that ``accident
involvement rates were calculated by the population of CDL-holders,
using drivers with a CDL in Michigan and accidents in Michigan''1 while
also stating that ``because of certain problems with the Michigan data
. . . and to boost confidence in the findings, accident data from North
Carolina were used also.'' The reader is left to wonder what exactly
was problematic with the Michigan data; why did the findings of the
study need a boost in confidence to begin with; and why North
Carolina's data rather than data from other state(s) is sufficient to
address those deficiencies, among other questions.
Also, Blower claims that ``there are not enough 19-to-20 year old
CDL-holders, so 21-year olds are added to establish this population of
young drivers. . . . Those 22 to 24 . . . probably share many
characteristics with the younger drivers. This group was included in
the project in order to increase sample sizes where necessary.'' This
questionably constituted group of ``younger drivers'' was compared
against the age group of drivers which the author knew had the lowest
accident rates--specifically ``truck drivers 30-49 years old [who] are
clearly in the flat part of the accident rate curve.'' Evidently, this
cherry-picked comparison was intentional: ``the purpose of the project
is essentially to compare drivers on the steep part of the curve with
drivers in the flat area. . . . Accordingly, only drivers 18 to 24 and
30 to 49 are included in the study.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, in collecting and presenting the state data for the
2019 FMCSA notice and request for comments entitled, ``Commercial
Driver's Licenses; Pilot Program To Allow Drivers Under 21 To Operate
Commercial Motor Vehicles in Interstate Commerce,'' \45\ ATA adopted
FMCSA's approach of comparing the safety performance of 18-20 year olds
against that of 21-24 year olds. Most of these 18 to 20-year-old
drivers for whom comparative data is available appear to already
achieve equivalent--if not superior--levels of safety than that of
their older counterparts on critical safety measures such as crash
rates,\46\ particularly when compared to drivers aged 21, 22, 23, and
24, with whom they are closest in age.\47\ This pattern is consistent
with broader trends in Federal crash data encompassing passenger
vehicles as well as CMVs. Specifically, according to NHTSA's Traffic
Safety Facts Annual Report, in each of the past six years for which
NHTSA has data--i.e., 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017--male
drivers in the 16-20 age range had a lower involvement rate in fatal
crashes than male drivers in the 21-24 age range.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ 84 Fed. Reg. 21895 (May 15, 2019).
\46\ In response to FMCSA's May 15th, 2019, notice published at 84
Fed. Reg. 21895, ATA requested from its federation of state trucking
associations data from their respective State Driver Licensing Agencies
four points of data: (1) the number of 18, 19, and 20 year old CDL
holders in the state; (2) the number of crashes associated with 18, 19,
and 20 year old CDL holders in the state, over the past three years,
broken down by Fatal Crashes, Injury Crashes, and Property Damage Only
(PDO) Crashes; (3) the number of 21, 22, 23, and 24-year-old CDL
holders in the state; and (4) the number of crashes associated with 21,
22, 23 and 24 year old CDL holders in the state, over the past three
years, broken down by Fatal, Injury, and PDO Crashes. Unless otherwise
noted, ``crash rates'' were calculated by ATA, by dividing the number
of crashes associated with CDL holders of a particular age group in a
state, by the total number of CDL holders of that age group in the
state. Significantly, the data received from the states do not appear
to distinguish whether the CDL holder was at-fault in the crash in
question. In addition, the data received from the states may include
crashes that fall outside the ambit of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations' (FMCSRs) definition of ``accident.'' Also, unless
otherwise noted, the data may not distinguish between crashes that
occurred in a commercial or non-commercial vehicle. What is more, the
crash rates are not based on vehicle miles travelled (VMT). However,
these limitations held true across the board for data ATA received for
both 18-20 year old CDL holders as well as 21-24 year old CDL holders--
thus, allowing for a comparison of the safety performance of those two
cohorts of drivers, under the uniform metric of ``crash rates'' as that
term is defined in this document.
\47\ These two age groups are the ones selected by the Agency for
comparison of safety performance in the Under 21 Military Pilot
Program, and ATA would recommend that FMCSA similarly design the pilot
program that is the subject of this Notice by comparing the safety
performance of 18-20 year old interstate drivers (Covered Drivers) with
that of 21-24 year old interstate drivers (Control Group).
\48\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety
Facts Annual Report, Table 62, Driver Involvement Rates per 100,000
Licensed Drivers by Age, Sex, and Crash Severity, https://
cdan.nhtsa.gov/tsftables/tsfar.htm#; see also Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey,
https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm. (showing that ninety-four percent
of truck drivers are male).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significantly, these 18-to-20-year-old drivers operating CMVs in
intrastate commerce are already achieving this baseline level of safety
without the benefit of having trained under the enhanced training and
technology standards of the DRIVE Safe Act. Thus, if Congress were to
enact the DRIVE Safe Act, lawmakers should have every expectation to
observe similar, if not better, safety performance by 18, 19, and 20-
year-old interstate drivers relative to their older counterparts--the
latter of whom are not required to have their CMVs equipped with the
DRIVE Safe Act's vehicle safety technologies, which have the potential
to prevent or significantly reduce the number and severity of crashes.
b THE DRIVE SAFE ACT IS NOT JUST PRO-SAFETY--ITS ALSO PRO-JOBS:
With an average salary of $45,570, and excellent benefits, such as
paid leave, health insurance, and 401(k)s, trucking provides a stable,
good-paying career to Americans.\49\ However, these types of fulfilling
careers are out of reach for many otherwise-qualified 18 to 20-year-
olds because, 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
candidates develop the skills, habits, and attitudes necessary for a
long and satisfying career in the trucking industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/
oes533032.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significantly, even though the minimum age for interstate driving
is 21, the reality is that the average age of entry-level drivers
enrolled at private truck driver training schools is actually 35.\50\
This means that many drivers entering our industry may be on the back
end of their second, third, or fourth careers, pursuing a job in
trucking as an opportunity of last resort. As such, the trucking
industry is unable to tap into the ambitions of the next generation's
workforce and replenish its aging workforce with younger workers.
Unfortunately, blue-collar professions are still stigmatized in our
society and culture, which place a disproportionate emphasis on four-
year-degree colleges at the expense of vocational schools or the
skilled trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Commercial Vehicle Training Association, 2018 Legislative
Agenda, https://cvta.org/wp-content/uploads/CVTA-Legislative-Agenda-
2018.pdf, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike other blue-collar professions, however, the trucking
industry faces an additional barrier to entry in the form of 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 and significant student loan debt. Meanwhile, 4.6 million
Opportunity Youth \51\ in this country are neither employed nor in
school, even as the Nation is short 60,800 truck drivers. As mentioned
earlier, over the next decade, the industry will need to hire nearly
1.1 million total new drivers, considering retirement and the
industry's aging workforce.\52\ An update to the minimum age
requirement coupled with the right safety parameters is well overdue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ The Aspen Institute Forum for Community Solutions, Who Are
Opportunity Youth? https://aspencommunitysolutions.org/who-are-
opportunity-youth/.
\52\ Id. The average age of a truck driver is 49, 7 years older
than that of the typical U.S. worker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the proven safety performance of 18-20 year old drivers
who are already allowed to operate trucks in 49 U.S. states,\53\ and
given the threats that the driver shortage poses to the cost of moving
freight and to supply chain efficiencies, ATA urges Congress to address
this problem now, by including the DRIVE Safe Act (S.569, H.R. 1374) in
any forthcoming surface transportation reauthorization package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Id. at 19-30 (11 out of 12 states for which data could be
obtained within the comment period, 18-20 year old CDL holders had
lower or equivalent crash rates than their 21-24 year old counterparts
in the past 3 years).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b OTHER WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES CONGRESS SHOULD CONSIDER:
ATA also supports other legislative initiatives designed to bring
greater attention to the growing driver shortage, and attract a new
workforce into the industry. These include efforts to raise greater
awareness of job opportunities in the trucking industry, as well as
legislation that will bring an important focus to the advancement of
female representation and participation in the industry. Two such bills
are S.2858, the Promoting Women in Trucking Workforce Act and H.R.
5118, the Promoting Service in Transportation Act.
S.2858, the Promoting Women in Trucking Workforce Act, introduced
by two leaders on the Commerce Committee, Senators Moran and Baldwin,
rightly notes that although women currently make up 47 percent of the
U.S. workforce, they make up less than 7 percent of truck drivers, and
only a quarter of all transportation and warehousing jobs in trucking.
Of the 3.5 million truck drivers in 2018, only 234,234 of them were
women. While the trucking industry has taken great strides over the
last decade in increasing the female workforce, growing the number of
women truck drivers by 68 percent since 2010, women remain
underrepresented in the industry.
Through the establishment of a Women of Trucking Advisory Board
under the leadership of the FMCSA, the legislation will bring greater
attention to the recruitment, training, mentorship, and outreach to
women in the trucking industry. This in turn will lead to increased
female representation in trucking and greater industry diversity, while
providing another tool to help the trucking industry confront and stem
its growing driver shortage.
H.R. 5118, the Promoting Service in Transportation Act, introduced
by Rep. Rick Larsen, is a further crucial step that will enhance the
use of broadcast, digital and print media public service announcement
campaigns to promote job opportunities, and also encourage improved
diversity in the transportation workforce. Empowering individuals to
seek rewarding careers enjoys broad bipartisan support, and this bill
would help promote job opportunities for a wide swath of diverse
individuals in the trucking industry.
ATA supports both of these important legislative efforts, and
encourages their inclusion in any forthcoming safety title to accompany
a surface transportation reauthorization bill.
3) INFRASTRUCTURE:
b 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\57\ While an average of approximately $43
billion per year is expected to be collected from highway users over
the next decade, nearly $62 billion will be required annually to
prevent significant reductions in Federal aid for critical projects and
programs.\58\ It should be noted that a $62 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.\59\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ The Budget and Economic Outlook 2020-2030, January 2020
Congressional Budget Office.
\58\ Ibid.
\59\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are impacts that serve as a brake on economic growth and job
creation nationwide. Chairman Fischer and Ranking Member Duckworth, 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.
b THE BUILD AMERICA FUND:
ATA's proposed solution to the highway funding crisis is the Build
America Fund (BAF). 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.\60\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2016, Table
VM-1. Average light-duty vehicle consumed 522 gallons of fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ 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.\62\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ 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 the average car driver is
expected to pay 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.
There is also 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 8 percent over the next
decade, or about $3 billion.\63\ A modest increase in the fuel tax, or
a new fee on alternative fuel vehicles, can easily recover these lost
revenues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ 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.
b TRUCK-ONLY FEES:
We strongly caution against discriminatory funding schemes that
place the burden of supporting our infrastructure solely on the back of
the trucking industry. Forcing the industry to cover the entire gap
between available revenue and infrastructure funding needs will
jeopardize economic stability, cripple our Nation's supply chain, and
threaten to decimate recent economic gains. Moreover, it will
irreparably fracture the broad stakeholder support that has facilitated
the advancement of past highway bills. Therefore, any discriminatory
funding schemes, like a truck-only vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax,
must be dismissed as a misguided and prejudiced funding gimmick.
Mandating that the trucking industry bear the brunt of our Nation's
infrastructure investment via a truck-only VMT tax is unfair,
imbalanced, and runs counter to public interest. In terms of
feasibility, there are ample reasons why a truck-only VMT is an ill-
conceived and dangerous solution, especially when compared to other
available funding streams. First, experts agree that proper
implementation of a VMT tax will require at least a decade to generate
revenue because the relevant technology has yet to be fully developed,
large-scale field testing has not been conducted, data privacy and
security issues have not been addressed, and VMT enforcement mechanisms
have not been implemented to combat the expected evasion. With the
Highway Trust Fund edging closer to insolvency each day, we cannot
afford to wait more than a decade to provide a new funding stream
intended to pay for a five year bill.
Second, a VMT fee would require individual accounts for each taxed
vehicle. Even if applied only to trucking, this would affect as many as
36 million vehicles, which would impose an overwhelming administrative
cost and the burden of creating and monitoring 36 million individual
accounts.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ American Trucking Trends 2019. American Trucking Associations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, the concept of using ELDs to track and report truck miles
traveled is untenable, as Federal law prohibits government agencies
from using ELDs for any purpose other than Hours of Service
compliance.\65\ Further complicating this concept is the fact that only
28 percent of commercial motor vehicles are legally required to be
equipped with ELDs.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Issues and Options for a Tax on Vehicle Miles Traveled by
Commercial Trucks. Congressional Budget Office, Oct. 2019.
\66\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, a truck-only VMT tax would not only cause irreparable harm
to the trucking industry, but would prompt uncertainty in the supply
chain and increase cost of moving freight, making domestic
manufacturers and farmers less competitive and goods more expensive.
The impact would reverberate throughout our cities, towns, and
communities where trucks deliver vital necessities, including food and
drinking water, clothes to purchase, parts to build automobiles, and
fuel to power them.
bTOLLS:
ATA opposes the expansion of Interstate highway tolling authority
and highway ``asset recycling.'' Interstate tolls are a highly
inefficient method of funding highways, and extremely costly for
motorists. One study found that converting all Interstate highways into
toll roads would cost more than $55 billion.\67\ Tolling also forces
traffic onto secondary roads, which are weaker and less safe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
the Build America Fund 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.\68\ 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 is equivalent to their cost for
an entire year under ATA's BAF proposal for all roads and bridges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ http://www.66expresslanes.org/documents/
66_express_lanes_january_2018_performance_ereport.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 employers in rural areas and small towns, and if
they are forced to cut back or close down, this could cause a ripple
effect 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.
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.
b 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,
ATA supports the creation of a new discretionary grant program with
dedicated funding from the federal-aid highway program for truck
parking capital projects
b FREIGHT PROGRAMS:
With the creation of two new freight funding programs, the FAST Act
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, with higher funding levels.
Furthermore, ATA opposes increasing the 10 percent cap on funding for
non-highway projects, or the expansion of eligibility for non-highway
projects. Given that trucks carry 71 percent of the Nation's freight
and that, unlike other modes, trucking companies cannot directly fund
their infrastructure, the Federal government has a special
responsibility to ensure that highways critical to serving the
country's interstate commerce needs are safe, well-maintained and
efficient.
bGRANTS 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 proposes 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.
CONCLUSION:
Chairman Fischer, Ranking Member Duckworth, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you again for providing ATA with the opportunity to
testify before you today. As you have likely ascertained in my
testimony, the trucking industry is under increasing 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 address tomorrow's. Your leadership toward the
challenges of today and the future are vital to our continued economic
strength and to 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
by providing the resources and regulatory framework that will make our
fleets safer and more connected. Congressional leadership would also
allow our industry to meet the growing driver shortage head-on, and
recruit a workforce for the next generation of trucking. Finally, your
actions could prevent the continued decay of our infrastructure and
sense of national decline, and help us return to the national sense of
a ``shining city on a hill,'' where the roads to that city are not
scarred by potholes and collapsing bridges.
Alternatively, inaction or misguided action will grind the wheels
of the trucking industry and our national economy to a screeching halt.
Our roads would become less safe. And we would be ceding our global
leadership in freight movement to countries that are making the
necessary investments in infrastructure. Of equal or greater concern,
we would be 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.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Spear. Next, I would like
to welcome Mr. Lewie Pugh, who is the Executive Vice President
of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, a role
he was elected to in 2018. He began his career in trucking in
1992 as a motor transport operator in the United States Army
Reserve. Welcome, sir.
STATEMENT OF LEWIE PUGH, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, OWNER-
OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Pugh. Thank you. Good morning. I am Lewie Pugh, the
Executive Vice President of the Owner-Operator Independent
Drivers Association. Prior to working at OOIDA, I was a small
business operator and trucker for nearly 23 years with roughly
two-and-a-half million safe miles of driving. Prior to that, I
was a truck driver in the United States Army. I still proudly
hold my CDL. In short, my entire career has been in trucking.
From the perspective of small business motor carriers and
professional drivers, the state of the trucking industry is
dysfunctional. This is because too many people who know
virtually nothing about trucking have an oversized role in
shaping trucking policies. Drivers feel the negative effects of
this firsthand, myself included.
The hours of service rules are broken. There are hundreds
of regulations that have nothing to do with highway safety. The
lack of available truck parking is a national crisis.
Enforcement is often motivated by profit, and drivers work
extremely long hours for notoriously low pay. If you ask most
drivers, what Congress has done recently to help their
profession the answer would be simple, nothing.
In fact, most of our members would tell you that Congress
enacts laws that drive truckers away from the industry and
decreases highway safety. This isn't a partisan attack against
Republicans or Democrats, but yet an honest reflection on how
truckers view Congress. Don't get me wrong, while Washington
has contributed its fair share of the dysfunction in trucking,
there is plenty to go around--plenty of blame.
Too many drivers are forced to haul cheap freight. Too many
motor carriers mistreat drivers and under pay them. Too many
shippers and receivers detain drivers for extended periods of
time. Too many enforcement agencies prioritize profits over
safety. Too many safety advocates seek mandates that do not
work. Too many motors don't even attempt to operate safely
around big trucks.
I make these claims on first-hand experience. I have seen
it and I have lived it. We are all responsible for creating
this mess so we are all responsible for fixing it as well. As
Congress considers the next highway bill, there are several
ways to make a positive difference. Repeal the failed DOT
mandate. Repeal the overtime exemption for drivers in the Fair
Labor Standards Act. Provide dedicated funding for new truck
parking capacity. Create a fair process for drivers to appeal
inspections written in error. And fix the Nation's crumbling
infrastructure in an equitable way.
You should abandon meaningless, unproven, unsafe policies.
Do not mandate speed limiters. Do not mandate front and side
underride guards. Do not mandate higher insurance minimum. Do
not enact VMTs for trucks only, and do not expand tolling
authority. And do not pass the Drive Say Act. I want to take a
moment to focus on the DRIVE-Safe Act. Contrary to what other
associations repeat constantly, there is no driver shortage.
The notion of a driver shortage isn't supported by facts, data,
or reputable research. In other words, it is a myth. We oppose
this bill because it is a solution in search of a problem and
we urge Congress to reject it.
Washington has allowed truck policy to be overly influenced
by executives looking to maximize profits, activists who like
to regulate truckers into oblivion, State and local governments
who view truckers as rolling piggy banks, and self-proclaimed
experts who don't even know what the inside of the cab of a
truck looks like. This has to change. Most truckers don't wear
suits on a daily basis. They don't have advanced degrees in
engineering and economics, but they know trucking. Truckers
aren't the problem, they are the solution and Congress should
treat them accordingly.
Thankfully, some lawmakers such as Chairwoman Fisher and
Congressman Brian Babin who see much of the dysfunction in our
industry and understand that just maybe it is time to start
listening to what real truckers have to say. We appreciate
being a part of this hearing. We have some sensible ideas on
how to fix the industry and improve highway safety, and I look
forward to sharing them with you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pugh follows:]
Testimony of Lewie Pugh, Executive Vice President, Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Association
Chairwoman Fischer, Ranking Member Duckworth, and members of the
Subcommittee, my name is Lewie Pugh and I am the Executive Vice
President of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association
(OOIDA). Prior to working at OOIDA, I was a small-business trucker for
nearly 23 years with 2.5 million miles of safe driving. Before
operating my own trucking business, I drove a truck during my service
in the United States Army. I still proudly hold a Commercial Driver's
License (CDL). In short, I've been a trucker my entire career.
About OOIDA
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.
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.
Introduction
From our perspective as small-business motor carriers and
professional drivers, we can see that the trucking industry is
dysfunctional.
In large part, this is because too many people who know very little
about trucking have an oversized role in shaping trucking policy.
Drivers feel the negative effects of this firsthand, especially OOIDA
members.
This dysfunction is apparent in seemingly every aspect of our
industry. For example, the hours-of-service (HOS) rules are broken.
They fail to reflect the realities of trucking and have done nothing to
improve highway safety since their implementation. Our members comply
with hundreds of other ineffectual regulations that have no impact on
highway safety. Despite the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)
noting that the lack of truck parking had become a serious highway
safety concern back in 2015, nothing has been done to address the
growing crisis our members face every day. Law enforcement agencies
have become too comfortable prioritizing revenue over safety. And
drivers continue to work extremely long hours with notoriously low pay.
If you ask most drivers what Congress has done recently to improve
their profession, I regret to inform you the answer is ``nothing''. In
fact, most of our members would tell you that Congress generally enacts
laws that not only drive people away from the industry, but decrease
highway safety. This isn't a partisan attack against Republicans or
Democrats, and we're by no means suggesting we don't fully appreciate
the support we've received from individual Members of Congress on
certain policies. In fact, we sincerely appreciate the efforts of
elected officials like Chairman Wicker, who has spent much of his
tenure in Washington fighting against bigger and heavier trucks.
Instead, this is an honest reflection of how truckers view the
legislative branch as a whole.
Don't get me wrong--while Washington has contributed its fair share
to the dysfunction in trucking, there is plenty of blame to go around.
Too many drivers are forced to haul cheap freight; too many motor
carriers mistreat and underpay drivers; too many shippers and receivers
detain drivers for excessive periods of time; too many safety advocates
seek mandates that don't work; and too many motorists don't even
attempt to operate safely around big trucks.
I make these claims based on firsthand experience. I've seen it.
I've lived it.
OOIDA acknowledges all stakeholders are responsible for creating
this mess, and believes we're all responsible for fixing it as well.
As Congress considers the next highway bill, there are several ways
you can make a positive difference for American truckers:
Repeal the failed electronic logging device mandate;
Repeal the overtime exemption for drivers in the Fair Labor
Standards Act;
Provide dedicated funding for new truck parking capacity;
Create a fair process for drivers to appeal inspection
violations written in error; and
Fix the Nation's crumbling infrastructure in an equitable
way.
You should also abandon unsafe, unproven, and unfair proposals:
DO NOT mandate speed limiters;
DO NOT mandate front and side underride guards;
DO NOT mandate higher insurance minimums;
DO NOT enact a truck-only vehicle miles traveled tax or
expand tolling authority; and
DO NOT pass the DRIVE-Safe Act.
I want to take a moment to focus on the DRIVE-Safe Act, which I
will address in greater detail later in this testimony. Contrary to
what other associations repeat constantly, there is no driver shortage
that requires passage of this bill. The notion of a driver shortage
isn't supported by facts, data, or reputable research. In other words,
it's a myth. We oppose this bill because it's a solution in search of a
problem. We urge Congress to flatly reject it.
Unfortunately, the DRIVE-Safe Act is symbolic of Washington's
approach to trucking. For too long, Congress has allowed policy to be
overly influenced by executives looking to maximize profits, activists
who'd like to regulate truckers into oblivion, state and local
governments who view truckers as rolling piggybanks, and self-
proclaimed ``experts'' who don't even know what the inside of a truck
looks like. This has to change.
Most of our members don't wear suits on a daily basis. Most of our
members don't have advanced degrees in economics or engineering. But
they know trucking. Congress needs to understand truckers aren't the
problem, they are the solution--and treat them accordingly.
Thankfully, there are lawmakers--such as Chairwoman Fischer and
Congressman Brian Babin--who see much of the dysfunction in our
industry and understand that maybe it's time to listen to what real
truckers have to say.
OOIDA appreciates being part of this hearing. We have some great
ideas on how to fix many of the problems facing our industry, while
simultaneously improving highway safety.
Electronic Logging Devices and Hours-of-Service Reform
Today's 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. A prime example of this problem is the electronic
logging device (ELD) mandate.
This massively expensive rulemaking, disguised as a silver bullet
to improve safety, has driven many experienced truckers out of the
industry. The roughly $2 billion in costs associated with the mandate
have imposed financial and compliance burdens on American businesses of
all sizes, especially small carriers who are forced to spend their
resources on installation, compliance, and service fees for equipment
that has not shown any proven safety benefit. We urge the Committee to
repeal the ELD rulemaking or consider commonsense legislation that
would exempt small-business carriers and drivers who have exhibited a
proven history of safety.
Since December 2017, the implementation of the ELD mandate has
highlighted the need for substantive hours-of-service (HOS) reform.
Currently, the HOS regulations that dictate a truck driver's work
schedule are overly complex, provide virtually no flexibility, and in
no way reflect the physical capabilities or limitations of individual
drivers. They effectively force drivers to be on the road when they are
tired or fatigued, during busy travel times such as morning and
afternoon rush hour, during adverse weather and road conditions, or
when they simply are not feeling well.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's (FMCSA) 2019
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) represents a welcomed shift toward
developing regulations that better reflect the realities of trucking
and improve safety for all highway users. OOIDA strongly supports the
agency's approach, which will provide drivers more opportunities to
rest when they are tired, to stay off the road during adverse driving
conditions, and to maintain greater control over their own schedules.
The provisions included in the NPRM will deliver much needed
flexibility for drivers and notably do not increase the maximum
allowable driving time.
However, in order to maximize the safety benefits of these changes,
drivers should have sole discretion over how and when they use each of
the provisions. In response to the proposal, OOIDA submitted the
following feedback:
OOIDA supports the split-duty provision which would allow
drivers to ``pause'' the 14-hour clock for up to 3 consecutive
hours once per duty period.
OOIDA recommends eliminating the 30-minute rest break rule
altogether. However, as an alternative, drivers should be
allowed to split the 30-minute break into smaller segments,
such as multiple 5 or 10 minute periods.
OOIDA supports the 7/3 split sleeper-berth provision, but
recommends the agency also include 6/4 and 5/5 options.
OOIDA supports both changes to the short haul exceptions,
which will extend the driving window from 12 to 14 hours and
expand the air mile radius from 100 to 150 air miles. We also
recommend allowing drivers using the short haul exception to
end their work shift at a different location than their
original dispatch.
OOIDA supports extending the duty period from 14 to 16 hours
for drivers that use the adverse driving provision. We also
recommend expanding and clarifying conditions that would
qualify for the adverse driving provision.
OOIDA applauds all of the Senators that supported greater HOS
flexibility in a May 2019 letter to FMCSA. We encourage Members of
Congress to continue constructively engaging in the HOS rulemaking
process and avoid disrupting what our members hope will produce the
most positive improvements to truck safety regulations in recent
memory. Meaningful HOS reform will not only help the trucking industry
and benefit highway safety, but can drive economic growth across the
country, creating new opportunities and greater job security for
millions of hard-working Americans.
Coercion
As FMCSA is finalizing its HOS reforms, Congress should also be
aware of a significant safety issue facing drivers--coercion. Coercion
occurs when a motor carrier, shipper, receiver, or transportation
intermediary threatens to, or actually does, take action against a
driver who refuses to violate Federal safety regulations. Those
coercing drivers are typically in positions of power, and drivers often
feel pressure to engage in unsafe behavior to avoid losing their job or
pay. This jeopardizes the safety of the driver as well as others on the
road.
Congress has recognized the dangers of coercion and previously
enacted legislation that explicitly prohibited the practice. FMCSA
finalized a rule in 2015 that established standards for what
constitutes coercion, a method for truckers to report complaints, and a
process for the agency to assess and take action on these complaints.
Unfortunately, in our members' experience, this process has been
wholly ineffective. Some of our members have never received a response
to their complaint or have been told FMCSA had lost track of their
submission. A lack of confidence in this system has discouraged drivers
from reporting unsafe practices.
With FMCSA finalizing regulatory reforms that will give drivers
more flexibility in their schedules, it is critical they retain sole
discretion over how these flexibilities are used. Congress, through its
oversight of FMCSA, should make sure bad actors within our industry are
being held accountable for any coercive practices. Drivers want to
operate as safely as possible, but need meaningful support from the
Federal government to ensure they aren't pressured to violate
regulations.
Highway Funding
As Congress considers solutions for the impending shortfall within
the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), it must account for any proposal's impact
on small-business truckers. America's truckers understand that the
economic success and competitiveness of both their operations and the
Nation depend on a safe, reliable, and well-funded transportation
system. Accordingly, OOIDA supports efforts to increase HTF revenues so
long as it is done in a fair and equitable way. Congress must steer
clear of any proposals that would put an oversized financial burden on
truckers, who already pay more than their fair share.
A recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found HTF
revenues derived from the trucking industry through the heavy-vehicle
and tire taxes are actually projected to increase over the next decade.
Between the current diesel tax and these supplemental taxes, the
trucking industry is estimated to increase its contributions to the HTF
over this 10 year period.\1\ Furthermore, the costs of administering
the existing Federal fuel taxes are extremely low--estimated to be less
than 1 percent of all revenues collected.\2\ Congress should be looking
to build on this relatively stable and predictable system. Therefore,
OOIDA prefers boosting dedicated revenues to the HTF through reasonable
and impartial increases to Federal gasoline and diesel taxes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CBO, Issues and Options for a Tax on Vehicle Miles Traveled by
Commercial Trucks (2019).
\2\ Transportation Research Board, Costs of Alternative Revenue
Generation Systems, Report 689 (National Highway Cooperative Research
Program, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are steadfastly opposed to several proposals that would
disproportionately burden truckers. One potential funding mechanism we
are concerned with is a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax. While this
concept may sound appealing in theory, there are far too many questions
and uncertainties for Congress to begin implementing any sort of VMT
program in the next highway bill. There will be significant costs
associated with a VMT tax as well, and implementation and
administrative fees are likely to be at least ten times as high as the
current fuel tax system.\3\ Like the current fuel taxes, a VMT system
would also fail to remain viable if not indexed to inflation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ CBO, Issues and Options for a Tax on Vehicle Miles Traveled by
Commercial Trucks (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also particularly concerned about proposals that would
single out the trucking industry for a truck-only VMT. This would
assure that truckers pay an unfairly high cost to prop up the HTF. We
also oppose any efforts to utilize ELDs to impose a VMT on motor
carriers. Small-business truckers have already borne a significant and
disproportionate cost for complying with the ELD mandate, and utilizing
the devices to facilitate a VMT program would create new costs and
greater privacy issues.
OOIDA also remains opposed to the expansion of tolling. Tolling
systems lack the efficiency and effectiveness of current funding
mechanisms. Research has shown that tolling is an extremely wasteful
method of generating revenue compared to fuel taxes, with as much as 30
percent of funds going to administrative costs \4\ rather than the
construction and rehabilitation of roads and bridges. Additionally,
toll roads consistently fail to meet revenue projections, creating
unanticipated funding shortfalls, which can lead to deteriorating road
conditions and early toll rate increases. In some states, tolling
revenue is even used to prop-up urban transit systems, which is
frustrating for truckers. In Pennsylvania, tolls on the state's
turnpike will increase in 11 straight years to generate sufficient
revenue to support some of the state's non-highway infrastructure.
Truckers predominantly pay tolls out-of-pocket, as shippers seldom
reimburse charges under the freight rate system. For small trucking
businesses, any expansion of tolling, especially on major highways like
interstates, will directly undercut their bottom line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Transportation Research Board, Costs of Alternative Revenue
Generation Systems, Report 689 (National Highway Cooperative Research
Program, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also closely monitoring proposals to repeal the Federal
Excise Tax (FET). Any FET repeal must include a practical pay-for to
offset for the lost HTF revenues it would create. Our members are
concerned that some suggested offsets would generate inequitable
financial burdens among motor carriers, leaving primarily small-
business truckers and owner-operators--who are less likely to purchase
new trucks than their larger competitors--to make up the difference.
Compensation and Misclassification
Like all hard-working Americans, drivers want to be appropriately
compensated for their work. For decades, driver compensation has been
eroding, making careers in trucking less appealing to new entrants and
less sustainable for experienced truckers.
Currently, drivers are exempt from overtime pay through the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This exemption was implemented in the 1930s
to prevent drivers from working too many hours, but today, it simply
prevents them from receiving adequate compensation for the work they
do. It also contributes to problems with excessive detention time
because shippers, receivers, and others in the industry have no
financial incentive to load and unload trucks in an efficient manner.
Simply put, this exemption makes it the law that a driver's time should
be less valued than other professions. The FLSA exemption for truck
drivers is outdated and should be repealed.
OOIDA is committed to working with Congress as it examines and
potentially addresses other issues related to driver compensation, such
as employee classification. Without question, some truck drivers are
misclassified, including some of our members. At the same time, the
owner-operator business model has a well-established history and has
provided millions of drivers the opportunity to be true independent
contractors and small-business entrepreneurs. Congress should therefore
avoid jeopardizing this beneficial model when addressing
misclassification issues arising from the advent of the ``gig
economy.''
In trucking, misclassification is generally done through ``lease-
purchase'' agreements which are arrangements where motor carriers lease
a vehicle to a driver with the promise of fair compensation, future
ownership of the truck, and ``independence'' from traditional employer-
employee requirements. The most problematic lease-purchase schemes are
generally those that require the driver to lease their truck to the
motor carrier when both are effectively the same entity. Through lease-
purchase agreements, motor carriers avoid providing employee benefits,
paying applicable taxes, and complying with other labor and employment
laws.
That said, the trucking industry is incredibly complex, and any
potential legislation to address misclassification should not only
account for its diversity, but also the host of Federal regulations
that small-business truckers must comply with. It's important to
remember the majority of owner-operators are true independent
contractors--they own their equipment, negotiate their contracts, and
control their terms of work.
Unfortunately, ill-conceived legislation involving
misclassification has the potential to disrupt the livelihood of small-
business truckers. Our members have already experienced this disruption
in California with the enactment of AB5. This policy has pushed many
motor carriers to sever ties with independent owner-operators from the
state. Given the unique nature of the trucking industry, we urge
Congress to consult with independent owner-operators before considering
any legislation that could negatively impact their businesses and
compensation.
The Driver Shortage Myth and DRIVE-Safe Act
Far too many Members of Congress have accepted the driver shortage
myth, which illustrates a troubling lack of understanding about our
industry. Taking a closer look at what's actually occurring in trucking
will reveal there is no driver shortage at all. It will also show that
embracing some of the solutions proposed by those peddling the myth
will only compound many of the actual problems facing our industry.
OOIDA strongly opposes efforts that would lower the minimum age
requirement for truckers engaged in interstate commerce. S. 569, the
DRIVE-Safe Act, presents obvious safety concerns for the new truck
drivers it hopes to attract, as well as the traveling public who would
share the road with them. Younger drivers--especially teenagers--
generally lack the maturity and experience to operate a commercial
motor vehicle (CMV) at the safest levels. Research indicates CMV
drivers under the age of 19 are four times more likely to be involved
in fatal crashes than all truck drivers, and CMV drivers between the
ages of 19-20 are six times more likely to be involved in fatal crashes
compared to all truck drivers. The DRIVE-Safe Act would allow these
young drivers to make cross-country trips, requiring them to drive in
terrain and weather conditions they may find completely unfamiliar. We
acknowledge operational challenges exist for drivers near border
cities, such as Kansas City, MO, and Kansas City, KS. However,
operating across state lines in the greater Kansas City area is much
different than driving across the country on a routine basis.
While these clear safety implications alone should dissuade elected
officials from lowering minimum age requirements, professional drivers
understand there are long-standing problems within the trucking
industry that such a change would only worsen. For decades, our
country's largest motor carriers and the trade associations in
Washington that represent them have touted the myth of a driver
shortage as a means to promote policies designed to maintain the
cheapest labor supply possible. Over the same period, driver
compensation has remained relatively stagnant, failing to increase at a
rate that keeps pace with inflation. Experience tells us many of those
entities pushing for S. 569 would simply use it to take advantage of a
new pool of drivers--teenagers, who would be subjected to poor working
conditions, predatory lease-to-own schemes, and woefully inadequate
compensation.
Rather than developing legislation to allow more teenagers behind
the wheel of 80,000 pound trucks, Congress should be taking steps to
reverse the incessantly high driver turnover rate, which remains
precariously high among many large truckload carriers. Reviewing the
American Trucking Associations' (ATA) quarterly reports on driver
turnover, you'll discover the rates among large carriers are
particularly troubling--generally falling anywhere between 70 and 100
percent annually since 2011. In their most recent report, the
organization estimated the annualized rate for 2019 through the third
quarter at 96 percent. Further dispelling the driver shortage myth, the
ATA's press release on the December 2019 report explains, ``Large
carriers reduced the number of drivers they employed, in keeping with
lackluster freight levels. . .'' It continues, ``During the first two
quarters of the year, larger carriers added drivers, but in the third
quarter they started right-sizing their fleets [emphasis added].'' \5\
By no means does this sound like an industry suffering from a shortage
of drivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ American Trucking Associations, Turnover Rate at Truckload
Carriers Rose in Third Quarter, December 19, 2019, https://
www.trucking.org/article/Turnover-Rate-at-Truckload-Carriers-Rose-in-
Third-Quarter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence from multiple Federal agencies also helps dispel this
myth. By FMCSA's estimates, there are over 400,000 new CDLs issued
annually, which shows there is certainly no shortage of new entrants to
the industry.\6\ Additionally, a 2019 analysis from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics found the labor market for truckers is similar to that of
other blue-collar professions, and that while there is certainly a high
rate of turnover in some parts of the trucking industry, there doesn't
appear to be evidence of a shortage.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ FMCSA, Regulatory Evaluation of Entry-Level Driver Training
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regulatory Impact Analysis Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (March 2016).
\7\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly Labor Review, Is the U.S.
labor market for truck drivers broken? (March 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The perpetual churn of truckers driven by large fleets is also
detrimental to safety, as those who leave the workforce are immediately
replaced with less experienced individuals in an effort to keep labor
costs as low as possible and avoid improving difficult working
conditions. Without addressing the underlying circumstances that have
led to excessive churn, we anticipate turnover rates will remain high
or even increase--no matter the age of the driver.
Though allowing CDL holders under the age of 21 to engage in
interstate commerce is unlikely to reduce driver turnover or improve
safety, we appreciate the DRIVE-Safe Act's approach to robust new
entrant training. Aspects of the minimum standards included in the
legislation, especially 240 hours of mandatory behind-the-wheel
experience, are a good starting point for enhancing Federal training
requirements for current entry-level drivers, regardless of age.
Ensuring properly trained drivers are entering the workforce is
paramount to improving highway safety and reducing crashes. It will
also help ensure those beginning a career in trucking are better
prepared for the challenges and demands of the profession, which is
another critical element to reducing turnover rates.
However, we are greatly concerned about provisions within the bill
that permit drivers as young as 21 to train new drivers. This approach
is dangerously insufficient. Only the most experienced truckers with a
thorough history of safe driving should be permitted to train anyone
getting behind the wheel of a CMV for the first time.
OOIDA is eager to work with elected officials on legislation that
helps make trucking a viable and sustainable career choice for
Americans who are prepared to enter the driver workforce. However, we
will continue to dispel the driver shortage myth and oppose bills like
the DRIVE-Safe Act that are built upon it. This proposal jeopardizes
driver and highway safety in an effort to provide corporate motor
carriers the cheap labor they crave.
The Truck Parking Crisis
In 2015, the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Jason's Law
survey report recognized the lack of truck parking had become a serious
highway safety concern.\8\ Unfortunately, the problem has only worsened
since then. States and local communities across the U.S. are struggling
to maintain existing capacity, let alone keep pace with increasing
demand. Today, professional drivers encounter truck parking shortages
in every corner of the country. Absent Federal involvement, the problem
will continue to worsen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Jason's Law Truck Parking Survey Results and Comparative
Analysis, Office of Freight Management and Operations, Federal Highway
Administration, United States Department of Transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professional drivers regularly report difficulty accessing safe
parking for CMVs, especially during times of high demand. Surveys of
our members routinely reveal most truckers have been forced to drive
beyond the point where they feel safe and alert simply because they
could not find a place to park. This not only jeopardizes their own
safety, but also the well-being of the motoring public with whom they
share the road. Truckers are commonly placed in no-win situations where
they must decide to park in an unsafe or illegal location--such as a
vacant lot--or violate Federal HOS regulations by continuing to search
for a safer and legal alternative.
Forcing truckers to spend excessive amounts of time searching for
parking is certainly a serious safety concern for all highway users,
but the current crisis also creates additional hazards for the motoring
public. As a last resort, drivers who are unable to find adequate
parking reluctantly park in hazardous road-side locations, such as the
shoulders of highways and interstate entry and exit ramps. This creates
serious safety risks for law enforcement officials as well. Often, they
are faced with the dilemma of allowing a tired trucker to rest in a
dangerous location or ordering them to relocate when they are out of
drivable hours.
OOIDA has spent the last year working with our industry partners
and Members of Congress to develop a solution to this growing safety
concern. Too many Federal dollars have been spent recently on
technology-based solutions that fail to address the root of the
problem. We've determined Federal investment in the expansion of
trucking parking capacity is key. Soon, bipartisan legislation will be
introduced in the House that would establish a competitive
discretionary grant program--funded through existing highway safety
programs--for truck parking projects across the country. With a focus
on increasing capacity, the bill would provide funding for the
construction of new rest areas and truck parking facilities, while also
helping public entities convert existing spaces--such as inspection
sites, weigh stations, and closed rest areas--into truck parking
locations.
While this Committee may not maintain jurisdiction over this
specific proposal, your support for addressing this national safety
concern is vital. The truck parking crisis is a problem that affects
every segment of our industry--from the largest fleets to single truck
operators. Addressing the shortage has also been identified as a
priority by the law enforcement community. It's not often so many
industry stakeholders are in agreement on how to begin solving a
problem--let alone agreeing the problem exists in the first place.
OOIDA believes providing Federal investment in the expansion of
truck parking capacity must be a top priority for Congress in the
development of the next highway bill. Addressing this problem will
certainly demonstrate to professional drivers that Congress understands
one of the most significant challenges they face on a daily basis and
wants to help. Additionally, members of this Committee have shown
particular interest in expanding the role of women in our industry. Our
female members often identify the lack of safe parking as a factor that
not only prevents other women from beginning a career in trucking, but
discourages many experienced drivers from remaining behind the wheel.
Speed Limiters
Efforts to mandate the use of speed limiters on CMVs is an example
of a proposal that may initially sound effective, but in reality would
likely lead to higher crash rates. As a result, OOIDA adamantly opposes
S. 2033, the Cullum Owings Large Truck Safe Operating Speed Act of
2019.
Highways are safest when all vehicles are moving at the same
relative rate of speed. Establishing a one-size-fits-all mandate
limiting CMVs to a certain rate (S. 2033 favors 65 miles per hour)
would create dangerous speed differentials between heavy trucks and
other vehicles. Decades of highway research shows greater speed
differentials increase interactions between truck drivers and other
road users. Studies have consistently demonstrated that increasing
interactions between vehicles directly increases the likelihood of
crashes.\9\,\10\ Speed limiters also create dangerous
driving conditions, including challenges navigating merges and running
blockades (known as elephant races) that increase ``road rage'' among
other drivers. Arbitrary speed limits make it difficult for truck
drivers to switch lanes to accommodate merging traffic at entrance
ramps--or to merge themselves. Other drivers often react to these
situations in aggressive and unpredictable ways, creating unnecessary
hazards for themselves and our members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ David Solomon, Accidents on Main Rural Highways Related to
Speed, Driver, and Vehicle, Bureau of Public Roads (1964).
\10\ Johnson and Pawar, Cost-Benefit Evaluation of Large Truck-
Automobile Speed Limits Differentials on rural Interstate Highways,
Mack-Blackwell Rural Transportation Center (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only would mandated speed limiters increase road hazards, they
would do nothing to prevent speeding in some of the most safety
sensitive situations. In certain road conditions, such as inclement
weather or construction zones, well-trained drivers know to reduce
their speed to maintain safe operation. Since the safest speed in these
scenarios is often below 65 mph, speed limiters would likely have a
very limited impact on preventing crashes. Moreover, most truck-related
crashes occur on roads with a posted limit below 65 mph, rendering the
supposed benefits of proposals like S. 2033 meaningless.
In addition to increasing crash rates, this legislation would
disadvantage America's small-business motor carriers. In their proposed
2016 rulemaking on speed limiters, FMCSA and the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) admitted that ``this joint
rulemaking could put owner-operators and small fleet owners. . .at a
disadvantage in some circumstances.'' \11\ One remaining competitive
advantage for small trucking companies over their larger competitors is
the lack of a need to speed limit trucks for fleet management purposes.
Instead, small trucking businesses are able to operate at the speeds
determined to be safe by state officials, which in many cases is above
65 mph. Indeed, FMCSA and NHTSA concluded that as a result of losing
this advantage, ``some of the affected owner-operators would work for
trucking companies as independent contractors. If all of the affected
owner-operators worked for trucking companies as independent
contractors, they would lose $54 million in labor income.'' Smaller
carriers working at the behest of the larger fleets is not ideal for
safety, consumers, or the trucking industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ FMCSA and NHTSA, Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe
Operation; Speed Limiting Devices, https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=FMCSA-2014-0083-0003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our members will tell you they have experienced countless scenarios
when their expertise and discretion was needed to avoid an accident or
other dangerous situations. In many of these instances, speed limiters
would curtail their ability to safely respond to hazards. Rather than
mandating speed limiters, the most efficient and cost-effective means
to promote safer roads is simply enforcing existing speed limits, which
Congress authorized states to set based on their own unique factors.
Underride Guards
OOIDA strongly opposes efforts to mandate the installation of side
and front underride guards on all CMVs and trailers that exceed 10,000
pounds in gross vehicle weight (GVW), including S. 665, the Stop
Underrides Act.
Over the last several decades, NHTSA has considered numerous
options involving underride guards, but has consistently concluded
Federal mandates would be impractical and costly, thus outweighing any
perceived safety benefits. The Stop Underrides Act intentionally
disregards this reality and ignores the safety, economic, and
operational concerns we have raised with its sponsors and supporters.
Furthermore, in April 2019, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
issued a report on truck underride guards that indicated more data and
research was necessary to fully understand the scope of this type of
crash and how they can be prevented. The report also highlighted many
of the concerns our members, trailer manufacturers, and law enforcement
officials have about the equipment.
To be clear, we agree the existing rear underride guard on
trailers--commonly referred to as a ``DOT Bumper'' in the United
States--could be enhanced to reduce the risk of rear underrides for
automobiles. If the Canadian standard was applied in the U.S. on the
manufacture of new trailers, we would not oppose it. Unfortunately, S.
665 goes too far even in this regard. The bill would mandate truckers
install rear guards on trailers that can't physically accommodate them,
such as low boys, household goods trailers, auto transporters, etc. The
mandate would also retroactively apply to all trailers, including those
nearing the end of their service.
However, our biggest concern with S. 665 remains the required
installation of side underride guards. While existing technologies may
reduce passenger compartment intrusion in certain situations, the bill
fails to recognize numerous other issues limiting the real world
practicality of side underride guards. For example, installation of the
equipment would unquestionably create challenges for truckers
navigating grade crossings and high curbs, backing in to sloped loading
docks, properly utilizing spread-axle trailer configurations,
conducting DOT-required trailer inspections, and accessing vital
equipment located under the trailer--such as brakes. GAO's report
notes, ``Representatives from several trailer manufacturers, trucking
industry organizations, and police departments we spoke with cited
challenges with the use of side underride guards that would need to be
addressed prior to widespread adoption by the industry.'' \12\ S. 665
would also mandate side underride guards on equipment that can't
physically accommodate them, such as intermodal, bulk, specialized, and
flatbed trailers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ GAO, Truck Underride Guards Improved Data Collection,
Inspections, and Research Needed, GAO-19-264 (Washington, D.C.: March
2019)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, S. 665 requires the installation of front underride
guards on CMVs. Admittedly, we're less familiar with these devices
because they aren't currently commercially available in the U.S.
However, similar to the side underride guard provisions, this
requirement would likely be extremely problematic. GAO's report also
notes, ``Representatives from a tractor manufacturer that operates in
both the U.S. and the European Union told us that front guard designs
currently used in the European Union would not be compatible with
conventional tractors used in the U.S., stating that these guards would
need to be installed in the same space that the bumper, frame, and some
equipment--including crash avoidance technologies--already occupy.''
We would also point out the bill would require the creation of
performance standards for underride devices. Meaning, if an underride
guard fails to meet the standard while in operation, the vehicle would
be placed out of service and unable to operate. We have no idea how a
trucker would get a side underride guard, weighing approximately 1,000
pounds, delivered to the roadside. Nor do we have any idea how the
equipment would be installed safely on the roadside.
In sum, the bill mandates devices that aren't practical, don't
physically work, and would create serious operational difficulties for
our members. We should also note that the bill impacts millions of
CMVs, trailers, straight trucks, and other vehicles. With an estimated
price tag of tens of billions of dollars, S. 665 would be the costliest
Federal trucking mandate in history.
Minimum Insurance Requirements
Recently, trial lawyers and their allies in Congress have proposed
legislation to increase the minimum level of financial responsibility
for trucking companies operating in interstate commerce. While working
to gather support for their proposal, organizations like the American
Association for Justice (AAJ) have shared wholly misleading information
about this issue. OOIDA would like set the record straight on the real
impact a minimum insurance level increase would have on highway safety
and the catastrophic effect that would have on small trucking
businesses.
Federal law currently requires motor carriers engaged in interstate
commerce to carry at least $750,000 in liability coverage ($5 million
for those hauling hazardous materials). However, the vast majority of
carriers are insured at $1 million or more. Having additional coverage
is obviously not required, but the insurance industry tends to
naturally adjust levels based on market conditions. If enacted, the
AAJ's latest proposal--H.R. 3781 (the INSURANCE Act)--would increase
minimums from $750,000 to a whopping $4,923,154. Small-business
truckers would quickly see their premiums at least triple.
Contrary to claims by those who will benefit financially from an
increase in insurance minimums (i.e., trial lawyers), this will do
absolutely nothing to improve highway safety. Supporters of the
proposal have no reputable research indicating it would. And they never
will, because there is no correlation between insurance coverage and
highway safety. In fact, increasing insurance minimums would likely
force many owner-operators--who are collectively among the safest, most
experienced drivers on the road--out of the industry because premiums
would become unaffordable. As a result, legislation like H.R. 3781
would actually decrease highway safety, not improve it.
Proponents of the bill believe today's insurance requirements need
to be increased simply because they haven't been raised since the
1980s. This erroneously assumes the insurance industry only provides
coverage at the federally-mandated levels. Again, most motor carriers
are insured at least $250,000 above the minimum threshold because
that's what the market dictates.
AAJ and their allies want you to believe the rising cost of
healthcare for those involved in a crash justifies an increase in
insurance minimums. Unfortunately, research indicates this is patently
false.
As required by MAP-21, FMCSA commissioned the John A. Volpe
Transportation Systems Center (Volpe) to research this issue in greater
detail. In 2014, Volpe released its report, which explained, ``The vast
majority of CMV-caused crashes have relatively small cost consequences,
and the costs are easily covered with the limits of mandatory liability
insurance [emphasis added].'' If you're wondering if this includes some
of the most costly crashes, Volpe adds, ``A small share exceed the
mandatory minimum but are often covered by other insurance or assets.''
There are certainly catastrophic crashes that exceed today's
requirements. However, Volpe helps put these rare occurrences into
perspective by stating, ``A final portion of high-cost crashes would
fall outside compensation instruments even if the minimum liability
were raised.'' In short, these exceptional cases are often times so
expensive that no level of insurance would cover them. We would also
point out that, according to Volpe, only 0.06 percent of crashes result
in damages that exceed today's minimum coverage limits.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Kent Hymel et al., Financial Responsibility Requirements for
Commercial Motor Vehicles, John A. Volpe Transportation Systems Center
(2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what is the point of H.R. 3781?
It should come as no surprise that AAJ is pursuing this bill, as
trial lawyers typically receive 30-40 percent of a judgment or
settlement against a motor carrier--and sometimes more. For AAJ, this
is a shrewd, if not unabashedly transparent effort--mandating an
increase in coverage limits will exponentially boost their judgment and
settlements.
What remains most important is proposals to increase minimum
insurance rates for motor carriers will do nothing to improve highway
safety. Rather, it imposes yet another unnecessary and expensive
Federal mandate that will force the safest and most experienced
truckers off the road, while further lining the pockets of our Nation's
trial lawyers. There are so many other proven ways to reduce crashes
and improve safety without eviscerating the livelihood of our Nation's
hard-working, small-business truckers.
Automatic Emergency Braking
Automatic emergency braking (AEB) systems have garnered increased
attention lately because of their potential to improve highway safety.
We agree technology like AEB is promising, but efforts to mandate new
CMVs be equipped with the systems are premature. While AEB is designed
to help reduce or prevent rear-end collisions, this technology is still
in its infancy and can create new challenges and dangers for drivers,
such as false or unexpected system activation. In fact, several of our
members who chose to utilize AEB later reported deactivating the
systems because of operational difficulties.
For small-business truckers, AEB technology is also very expensive
and studies have shown it is not clear that the benefits of these
systems currently outweigh the costs.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ K. Grove et al., Field Study of Heavy-Vehicle Crash Avoidance
Systems, NHTSA (June 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legislation introduced in the House--H.R. 3773, the Safe Roads
Act--would require AEB systems on all new CMVs, including every truck
and vehicle involved in interstate commerce that has a vehicle weight
or GVWR of at least 10,001 pounds. Not only does this encompass all
tractor trailers, but also many pickup trucks and other heavy-duty
vehicles.
Again, an industry-wide mandate is entirely premature at a time
when AEB technology has yet to be perfected. In fact, improvements to
the technology are likely to expand AEB's deployment without a Federal
mandate, provided truckers can trust these systems are reliable, cost-
effective solutions to reducing crashes.
Compliance, Safety, Accountability Reform
Since the inception of the Compliance, Safety Accountability (CSA)
and Safety Measurement System (SMS) programs in 2010, there has been a
steady increase in truck related crashes, injuries, and fatalities.
Congress must continue holding FMCSA accountable in improving SMS/CSA
methodology. The agency must implement recommendations from the 2017
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) review in a way that accurately
reflects crash risk and crash causation. The NAS study proposed that
FMCSA should investigate data on carrier characteristics such as
methods and levels of driver compensation to improve SMS/CSA. OOIDA
supports a Federal study reviewing the impacts of driver compensation
and safety.
As FMCSA works to implement the NAS recommendations, OOIDA opposes
efforts that would return CSA scores to public view before the agency's
reforms are completed. Publicly posting an analysis of violations
developed under CSA while the system is still being improved is
extremely problematic. Rather than creating arbitrary timeframes for
the availability of data, Congress should focus its efforts on ensuring
FMCSA is establishing a program that is fair, reliable, and actually
based on safety.
Detention Time
Generally, if the truck's wheels are not moving, drivers are not
getting paid. As a result, many drivers spend countless unpaid on-duty
hours being detained by shippers and receivers because Congress and
FMCSA have failed to address excessive detention time. For far too
long, the trucking industry has typically defined detention as any time
spent waiting to load or unload in excess of two hours. This line of
thinking completely discounts the value of a driver's time. Any updated
definition or set of standards estimating reasonable detention periods
must instead prioritize the driver's time. Shippers and receivers
should not be awarded a complimentary two-hour grace period at the
driver's expense.
Detention time is both a safety and financial concern for small-
business truckers and professional drivers. A 2018 USDOT Inspector
General (OIG) report estimated that a 15-minute increase in average
dwell time--the total time spent by a truck at a facility--increases
the average expected crash rate by 6.2 percent. The study also
estimated that detention time is associated with reductions in annual
earnings of $1.1 billion to $1.3 billion for for-hire CMV drivers in
the truckload sector and that detention reduces net income by $250.6
million to $302.9 million annually for motor carriers in that
sector.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ U.S. DOT Office of Inspector General, Estimates Show
Commercial Driver Detention Increases Crash Risks and Costs, but
Current Data Limit Further Analysis, U.S. Department of Transportation
(Jan 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These findings from the OIG report echo what OOIDA members have
been dealing with for years. According to a 2018 survey of our members,
a majority of both those who operate under the 60 hour/7-day rule and
those who operate under the 70 hour/8-day rule indicated they spend
between 11 and 20 hours each week waiting to load or unload their
truck. In other words, those operating under the 60-hour rule spend
approximately 18 percent to 33 percent of their possible drive time in
detention, while those under the 70-hour rule spend 16 percent to 29
percent of their time detained. This uncompensated time means
individual drivers are effectively losing $865 to $1,500 per week.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association Foundation,
2018 Detention Time Survey (Jan 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The OIG study also concluded that, ``accurate industrywide data on
driver detention do not currently exist because most industry
stakeholders measure only time spent at a shipper or receiver's
facility beyond the limit established in shipping contracts. Available
electronic data cannot readily discern detention time from legitimate
loading and unloading tasks, and are unavailable for a large segment of
the industry.'' OOIDA supports FMCSA's efforts to collaborate with
industry stakeholders to develop and implement a plan to better collect
and analyze reliable, accurate, and representative data on the
frequency and severity of driver detention times.
As the agency gathers more information, we hope that both FMCSA and
Congress will take substantive action to reduce excessive loading and
unloading times and offset current safety and economic costs associated
with detention time.
Entry-Level Driver Training
OOIDA has supported national entry-level driver training (ELDT)
standards for decades. In our opinion, the best way to promote safety
is to improve driver training requirements. Currently, too many new
drivers enter the industry without the basic skills to safely operate a
CMV.
Following MAP-21, which mandated minimum training requirements for
individuals operating a CMV, OOIDA was an active participant in FMCSA's
Entry-Level Driver Training Advisory Committee (ELDTAC). Composed of
twenty-six industry members, the ELDTAC was tasked with conducting a
negotiated rulemaking to establish, for the first time, national
training standards for drivers. FMCSA published a final ELDT rulemaking
in December 2016, implementing many of the ELDTAC recommendations.
While far from sufficient, the ELDT final rule set a curriculum of
benchmarks that potential drivers needed to meet, created adequate
minimum qualifications for training instructors, and outlined essential
processes for registering training providers that would hold schools
and instructors accountable for their performance. The ELDT rule
established a February 7, 2020, compliance date, giving the agency,
states, and industry stakeholders more than three years to prepare for
its implementation.
Regrettably, just last week, with less than ten days before the
training standards were set to go into effect, FMCSA announced a two-
year delay of the entire ELDT rulemaking. The agency explained, ``the
extension is necessary so that FMCSA can complete the IT infrastructure
to support the Training Provider Registry (TPR), which will allow
training providers to self-certify, request listing on the TPR, and
upload the driver-specific ELDT completion information to the TPR.
Completion of the TPR technology platform is also necessary before
driver-specific ELDT completion information can be transmitted from the
TPR to the State Driver Licensing Agencies (SDLAs). This delay also
provides SDLAs time to make changes, as necessary, to their IT systems
and internal procedures to allow them to receive the driver ELDT
completion information transmitted from the TPR.'' Because the ELDT
rule would immediately begin improving CMV safety, we find this
reasoning to be unsatisfactory--especially considering the agency and
SDLAs had more than sufficient time to prepare the necessary systems
for the scheduled 2020 rollout. OOIDA encourages lawmakers to hold
FMCSA accountable in completing the IT infrastructure so there are no
further delays.
In the interim period, OOIDA would like to work with Congress and
FMCSA to improve the shortcomings of the original 2016 final
rulemaking. We believe that the requirements could best be bolstered by
establishing a minimum number of hours of behind-the-wheel (BTW)
training. A robust ELDT program that features mandatory BTW experience
will improve safety and reduce crashes among entry-level CMV drivers.
Autonomous Vehicles
While OOIDA acknowledges the benefits that autonomous vehicles
(AVs) may eventually bring, we believe lawmakers and the Federal
government must take careful and proper steps to ensure that AVs
optimally serve both the general public and CMV drivers. Professional
drivers will likely be the first to experience the technology's
shortcomings or deficiencies outside of controlled testing scenarios,
potentially creating serious safety concerns for our members and the
driving public. Additionally, OOIDA members and millions more working
in other segments of trucking face a particularly uncertain future, as
technology may first diminish the quality of their jobs, and then
threaten to displace them completely. Unlike many of the industries
involved in the proliferation of AV technology, truckers will probably
not experience significant economic gains under a looming autonomous
revolution.
Like all other safety systems and technologies, our members want to
know that AVs will perform dependably. Unfortunately, DOT's recent AV
4.0 guidelines fall short of providing a thorough research,
development, and deployment environment to ensure that AVs, including
autonomous CMVs, can operate safely. AV 4.0 continues to rely on self-
certification and a voluntary reporting system as the way to balance
and promote safety and innovation. This system fails to ensure the
transparency that is necessary for all stakeholders, including
professional drivers, to evaluate the performance of AVs. Without this
transparency, it will be extremely difficult for drivers to assess
manufacturers' claims about these new technologies and how they will
impact a driver's safety and livelihood.
As the Committee considers addressing AVs, we believe any
legislation should be limited to motor vehicles weighing less than
10,000 pounds. The safe operation of an automobile differs greatly from
that of a heavy vehicle. The introduction of autonomous technology to
both types of vehicles will present distinct safety challenges and
concerns that should be addressed and regulated on separate paths.
Features unique to the trucking industry, including how changing
technology may affect the jobs of millions of American drivers, merits
the development and consideration of policies specific to heavy
vehicles.
There are many other challenges that will need to be reconciled
before AVs can be safely deployed, including questions about liability,
cybersecurity, automation bias, insurance, and more. Small-business
truckers and professional drivers possess the knowledge and experience
that will be necessary to properly identify these concerns. While we
are still years away from fully automated trucks, decisions made today
will have a significant impact on how these technologies are deployed,
and ultimately, on the livelihood of professional truck drivers and the
economy at large. We look forward to working with elected officials,
Federal regulators, and our industry partners to ensure AV policies are
developed in responsible manner that takes into account the perspective
of American truckers.
Truck Size and Weight
Congress should oppose calls to increase truck size and weight
limits on our roads. Increasing the gross vehicle weight limit above
80,000 pounds would not only diminish safety and accelerate the
deterioration of highway conditions, but would also have a dramatic
impact on small trucking businesses that would be forced to modify
their equipment at great cost just to remain viable, with virtually no
return on their investment. Furthermore, allowing longer combination
trailers, known as `twin 33s', on our roads would only benefit a
handful of large corporate motor carriers, but would have a negative
impact on safety, infrastructure, and the rest of the trucking
industry. It would be unwise to take action that would increase
infrastructure repair costs at a time when available funding is already
dwindling.
We oppose any wholesale changes to size and weight limits, as well
as any pilot programs or industry-, region-, or corridor-specific
exemptions. These one-off exemptions still present the same concerns
described above, cause confusion for law enforcement, and increase the
likelihood that Congress will one day move to increase overall limits.
We appreciate Chairman Wicker's recognition of the problems created
by longer and heavier trucks and are thankful for his long-standing
efforts to oppose any increases. We look forward to working with the
Committee as there will inevitably be continued efforts to pursue these
misguided measures.
DataQ
The Federal Government allows truck drivers, motor carriers, and
others to request a review of FMCSA-issued data, such as violations and
inspection reports that might be incorrect or incomplete. This is
commonly referred to as a Request for Data Review, or DataQ. Under
Federal law, states have the authority to establish their own review
process, and unfortunately, nearly all of them have established a
system that does not provide due process for truck drivers or motor
carriers. Furthermore, in order to be eligible for certain safety grant
funding, states are required to establish a system that collects
accurate and complete data.\17\ We believe that many states are failing
to live up to this standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 49 CFR Sec. 350.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the current system, reviews and additional appeals in many
states are considered by the same person or agency who issued the
initial violation. This creates an inherent conflict of interest. Very
few law enforcement officers are willing to admit they made a mistake,
and as a result, truckers are often denied an appeal even if they are
correct about an erroneous violation. This is problematic because
violations remain on a driver's or carrier's safety record and can
negatively impact the employability of a driver and increase insurance
costs. In many cases, this can put a driver or a small carrier out of
business. In one particularly egregious instance, an OOIDA member spent
thousands of dollars in legal fees to get a correction for a violation
issued for a Federal regulation that does not even exist.
As a matter of fairness and due process, Congress should examine
ways to provide greater transparency and impartiality in the DataQ
process. This is not a revolutionary idea. FMCSA, in its manual for
best practices, recommends that states, ``implement a `DataQs Review
Council' to provide a fair and impartial secondary review of original
decisions.'' \18\ While many states have failed to do this, Arizona and
Minnesota are two states that have implemented a review process that we
believe provides a good starting point for other states to emulate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ FMCSA, DataQs Analyst Guide, Best Practices for Federal and
State Agency Users (2nd Edition, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to providing due process to truckers, it is also in
Congress' interest to have an accurate DataQ process because it will
ensure that accurate safety data is utilized during future policy
development. If the citations issued and data collected by state
agencies cannot be trusted, then it undermines FMCSA's safety efforts
more broadly.
Unified Carrier Registration (UCR)
Administered by the Federal and state governments through a
partnership with the motor carrier industry, the Unified Carrier
Registration (UCR) program is an outdated and imbalanced system by
which various taxes levied on motor carriers are collected and
distributed to 41 participating states. The system was established in
the 2005 highway bill for the purpose of maintaining a single national
register of motor carriers conducting interstate travel, and it should
be repealed in the next reauthorization.
OOIDA has many concerns with the system, starting with the
significant inequity in the assessment of fees. The current tax
structure is particularly burdensome and costly for single truck
operators and small fleets, who represent approximately 96 percent of
registered motor carriers, but often have limited resources compared to
large fleets. Inequalities are inherent between and within the
arbitrary fee brackets of the program. As a result, small motor
carriers unfairly and unjustifiably pay more per truck than their
larger competitors.
In addition to concerns about inequality, we believe the system
lacks the transparency and accountability to merit the trust and
support of motor carriers and Congress. In fact, the lack of any
meaningful Federal oversight has allowed UCR to become an out-of-
control bureaucracy, rife with nepotism among public officials and
private contractors. If members of this Committee took a closer look at
the structure, operations, and decision-making of UCR and its board, we
are certain you would share our disgust for the program.
To make matters worse, it is difficult to determine precisely what
programs UCR taxes are supporting within participating states. We do
know many states use UCR revenue as a non-federal match for Motor
Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) funding, which is devoted
primarily to enforcement. Essentially, these states are utilizing a
federally-authorized tax on motor carriers to leverage additional
Federal funding for the policing of them.
Through our participation in the UCR board, we have pushed for
reform of the system and opposed countless proposals that perpetuate
the program's lack of fairness, transparency, and accountability.
Unfortunately, the UCR board, which is dominated by state officials,
appears incapable or unwilling to address these concerns. As a result,
Congressional action is warranted and overdue.
Many of our members believe the system no longer meets its
objectives and favor eliminating it entirely in the next highway bill.
Absent its repeal, a Federal audit of how states are using UCR revenue
and MCSAP funding would be a constructive first step to determining if
the system remains necessary. Since its inception, UCR has never been
audited by the USDOT OIG. Congressional oversight of UCR is also badly
needed and should occur more regularly. Since its launch, the system
has never been the focus of a Congressional hearing. At the very least,
Congress should work with industry stakeholders to identify ways the
system can be reformed to enhance transparency and improve value to the
truckers who pay UCR fees.
Thank you for consideration of our testimony. OOIDA appreciates
being part of this hearing. We believe these proposals can help fix
many of the problems facing our industry, while simultaneously
improving highway safety.
Sincerely,
Lewie Pugh,
Executive Vice President,
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Pugh. Next, we have Mr.
Jake Parnell, who is the Manager of the Cattlemen's Livestock
Market in California. He is also Director of the Livestock
Marketing Association. Welcome, Mr. Parnell.
STATEMENT OF JAKE PARNELL, MANAGER,
CATTLEMAN'S LIVESTOCK MARKET ON BEHALF OF THE LIVESTOCK
MARKETING ASSOCIATION
Mr. Parnell. Thank you, Chairman Fischer, Ranking Member
Duckworth, members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting
me to testify about a stakeholder's perspective on the trucking
industry and its related regulatory environment. Specifically,
we appreciate the input from agriculture as a whole and in
particular, the livestock industry were sought. My name is Jake
Parnell. I manage Cattlemen's Livestock Market in Galt,
California. I am testifying today on behalf of the members of
the Livestock Marketing Association, an organization that I
serve on the Board of Directors and a Member of the
Transportation subcommittee.
Livestock Market serves as a hub to gather and sell
livestock from farmers and ranchers in a competitive bidding
environment. I am also a member of the National Cattlemen's
Beef Association, manage my own 500 head herd of commercial
cattle, and run between 1,000 and 2,000 yearlings who are
grazed on the West coast. Every Wednesday in Galt, livestock
are trucked to our livestock market.
Our market stimulates local economies and facilitates
buyers gathering loads of livestock to be shipped to the next
part of the production chain. The cornerstone for our business
is the ability to gather livestock from farmers, ranchers, and
dairymen who raise them and market them to buyers throughout
the United States. This movement of livestock is entirely
dependent upon the use of a very limited population of highly
skilled haulers who drive livestock commercial motor vehicles.
It might surprise you to hear that livestock producers and
livestock auction markets are specifically impacted by
transportation laws and regulations.
For example, in California, which ranks fourth in total
number of cattle, there is only one major feed yard. So the
cattle we raise in most cases must be transported to the
Pacific Northwest or more commonly the Midwest for feeding and
processing. Time is everything for the well-being of the
animals while being transported. The key to safely hauling
livestock, especially in times of great heat and humidity, is
to stop as infrequent as possible and to keep the trailer
moving to provide ventilation.
Unfortunately, although the majority of livestock calls can
be concluded within the time-frame of the outlined hours of
service regulation, livestock located in states outside of the
center part of the country cannot reach their destination
safely in an 11-hour drive time. When a driver runs out of time
while hauling live animals, they are given a grim prospects of
unloading livestock. If they can find somewhere willing to
receive them or they must leave them on the trailer for a 10
hour stretch to suffer from the elements, lack of ventilation,
and possible injury.
A hauler of live animals cannot unload on the side of the
road or a local hotel. There are a few public pin systems along
highways and the owners and managers of private feed yards and
livestock markets rarely accept livestock in transit due to
liability, staffing, and bio security concerns. Further, the
act of loading and unloading livestock have been reported to be
more stressful than the effect of transport itself. The drivers
that transport the animals work hard at safety.
A livestock hauler is forced by the nature of their cargo
to drive more cautiously than a conventional cargo hauler
because the live animals move throughout the trailer and can be
severely injured if the driver turns too suddenly or drives too
fast. Safety is so important to the livestock industry that
many livestock haulers have participated in additional
specialized training, including the Beef Industries Master
Cattle Transporter Program, which provides instruction on
proper animal handling, transportation methods, and focus on
preventing driver fatigue.
Due to all of this, livestock haulers boast a fantastic
safety record. For instance, a study conducted by the FMCSA and
the National Highway Traffic Safety Institute showed that 1,123
accidents involve trucks hauling cargo and a mere 5 involve
livestock transporters. Similarly, trucks involved in fatal
accidents, Fact book 2008, a report conducted by the
Transportation Research Institute, shows that of the 4,352
trucks involved in fatal accidents, livestock haulers accounted
for just 0.6 percent.
With this great track record of safety in mind, American
agriculture needs some help. The current hours of safety
provide too rigid, one-size-fits-all framework, increase
freight cost, and a shortage of qualified drivers can result in
cattle in the coasts and in the Southeast being severely
discounted. This can lead to producer and livestock hauler drop
out and can be felt by the American consumer trying to put an
affordable meal on their table.
Live animal haulers need more flexibility in order to
safely get there live cargo to its destination. The LMA
sincerely appreciates the several members of this subcommittee,
many of whom also serve on the Senate Ag committee, for their
assistance and diligent work toward safe and practical
solutions for our Nation's agriculture haulers.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Parnell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jake Parnell, Manager, Cattleman's Livestock
Market on behalf of the Livestock Marketing Association
I. Introduction
Chairman Fischer, Ranking Member Duckworth, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting testimony about stakeholder
perspectives on the trucking industry and related regulatory
environment. Specifically, we appreciate that input from agriculture as
a whole and the livestock industry in particular were sought.
The individuals who raise and sell livestock take great interest in
the regulatory structure surrounding the safe transport of those
animals. As such, the industry, Congressional partners, and the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) continue to work together
to seek and communicate understanding of Hours of Service (HOS) rules
while finding safe and appropriate flexibilities for this specialized
subset of haulers. It continues to be clear that rigid, one-size-fits
all HOS requirements do not work when hauling live animals. We
appreciate the recognition of Congress and the Agency that livestock
haulers face unique challenges and look forward to continuing to work
together to find solutions for this targeted segment of drivers.
II. Background
This testimony is provided by Jake Parnell, Manager, Cattleman's
Livestock Market. Mr. Parnell testifies on behalf of the Livestock
Marketing Association (LMA), an organization for which he serves on the
board of directors and a member of the transportation subcommittee. LMA
is the leading national trade organization for more than 800 livestock
marketing businesses located throughout the United States. LMA
represents more than 75 percent of the regularly selling local
livestock auction markets in the U.S. Livestock auction markets serve
as a hub to gather and sell livestock for farmers and ranchers in a
competitive bidding environment. This stimulates economies in local
communities and provides farmers and ranchers the opportunity to
receive a good price for their livestock. It also facilitates buyers
gathering loads of livestock to be shipped to the next part of the
production chain.
Mr. Parnell has managed Cattleman's Livestock Market (CLM) in Galt,
California since February 2007. CLM markets between 80,000 and 100,000
head of cattle annually, of which over half end up in the Midwest for
feeding or growing. Mr. Parnell is a member of the National Cattlemen's
Beef Association and, as a producer, manages over 500 commercial cows,
50 registered and show-type cows, and between 1000 and 2000 yearling
steers and heifers that are grazed annually between California, Nevada,
Oregon, and Washington.
III. Impact of Transportation Laws and Regulations on Agriculture and
the Livestock Industry
The cornerstone of livestock auction businesses is selling
livestock on behalf of farmers, ranchers, and dairymen to buyers who
gather loads to be shipped to the next phase of production. This
movement drives the economy of California and other states across the
country. This movement is also dependent upon the use of a very limited
population of highly skilled drivers who tend to be independent owner-
operators. While the Agency has safety oversight of more than 500,000
motor carrier companies and 5 million active commercial driver's
license holders operating across the nation, it estimates that only 3
percent of trucks on the road are agricultural haulers and less than 1
percent are livestock haulers.
A. Structure of Livestock Hauling Business
Livestock auction markets, farmers, and ranchers are particularly
impacted by transportation laws and regulations. Livestock markets
serve as a hub and gathering point for nearly 46 million head of
livestock each year. See 2018 Annual Report, Packers and Stockyards
Program (available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/
media/PSDAnnualReport2018.pdf). Livestock, primarily cattle, but also
sheep, goats, and others, are trucked to market for sale and then
hauled again to the country's highest quality grazing lands and
feedyards in the central and southern plains. Livestock do not travel
frequently in their lifetimes, but when they do, they can travel
significant distances. For example, according to a survey conducted as
part of the Beef Quality Assurance program, the mean distance traveled
by feeder calves to Texas and Nebraska feedyards was approximately
467.89 miles. This is a significant average given the immense quantity
of ``local'' cattle raised within Texas, Nebraska, and their
neighboring states, which need not travel significant distances to
arrive at a feedyard.
Many animals, not born in the center of the country must travel
great distances. In California, which ranks fourth in total cattle
numbers, 11,000 ranches raise about 600,000 head of beef cows and over
1.78 million dairy cows, generating over $308 million in 2015 to the
state alone. Because there is only one major feedyard in California,
these cattle, in many cases must be transported to the central plains
for feeding and processing, which is a significant drive.
On the other side of the country, one quarter of the Nation's cow
herd is located in the Southeast. Most farmers in this area have small
herds, typically fewer than 20 head, and depend upon the services
rendered by livestock markets and livestock dealers to gather their
small calf crops into marketable groups. These calves must be shipped
quickly and safely to grasslands and feedyards in the central and
southern plains. The weather and access to feedstuffs in these regions
are uniquely suited to successful cattle feeding. Time is everything
for the wellbeing of the animals being transported. (Schwartzkopf-
Genswein, Ahola, Edwards-Callaway, Hale, and Paterson, 2016) (``From an
animal welfare perspective, the total duration an animal is transported
is more important than the total distance it travels.''). Animals can
sustain long distances of travel if they are expediently and carefully
transported by skilled drivers.
B. Stopping with Livestock is Impractical
The key to safely hauling live animals, especially in times of
great heat and humidity, is to stop as infrequently as possible and to
keep the trailer moving to provide ventilation. The trailer environment
has been identified as having the greatest effect on animal welfare
during transport. (Mitchell and Kettlewell, 2008). In North America,
transport trailers are ventilated by perforations in the aluminum walls
of the trailer as well as openings in the roof. Consequently, the
potential to have poor welfare outcomes is significant if the trailer
is not moving, especially under extreme weather conditions. The
association between decreased animal welfare and increased transport
duration is well established and includes greater in-transit weight
loss, lameness, incidence of nonambulatory cattle, and death, as well
as increased morbidity in the feedyard upon arrival.
The majority of livestock hauls can be concluded within the time-
frame outlined by HOS regulations without significant stops which limit
airflow. However, unfortunately, for livestock located in or heading to
states outside the center of the country, this is not the case. When a
driver ``runs out of time'' while hauling live animals, they are given
the grim prospects of unloading the livestock or leaving them on the
trailer for a 10-hour stretch.
Unlike the haulers of non-living products, a livestock hauler
cannot merely find a safe place to park for their 10-hour rest and
leave the cargo on the trailer. Leaving animals on a trailer to suffer
from the elements, lack of ventilation, and probable injury is
unacceptable.
Simply unloading the animals for 10 consecutive hours of rest is
also not a good option. First, there is often nowhere to unload them. A
hauler of live animals cannot simply unload their charges on the side
of the road or at a local hotel. There are no pen systems available
along major American highways, and the owners of feedyards and
livestock markets are extremely hesitant to accept livestock in
transport due to liability, staffing, and biosecurity concerns.
With respect to biosecurity, facility and livestock owners, as well
as state and Federal animal health officials, spend significant time
creating and following procedures to minimize risk of animal diseases
spreading. This includes laws requiring certain livestock crossing
state lines travel with interstate certificates of veterinary
inspection that detail where the load came from and where it is going.
The trouble with unloading livestock at some waypoint along the trip is
that it is almost impossible for a driver to know where they will need
to stop in 11 hours with any measure of certainty. These movement
documents and the disease traceability programs associated with them
are in place to track and prevent contagious disease outbreaks in this
country. Every time animals in-transit are unnecessarily unloaded and
penned next to other animals in-transit, the risk of disease spread
increases.
Furthermore, these locations are rarely equipped to handle and
house species other than cattle, providing a challenge to haulers of
horses, sheep, goats, and pigs. For those hauling bees and fish, the
situation is even more challenging as these animals cannot be unloaded
at all while in transit. Additional challenges exist if livestock are
to be exported over the road to Canada or Mexico, as stringent trailer
sealing and biosecurity measures are required for these exports. This
process would be complicated by a rest period necessitating that the
doors to the trailer be opened before they reach their destination
across the border.
Even if a location is willing to take animals in, unloading and re-
loading those animals has a negative impact on their wellbeing. The act
of loading and unloading have been reported to be more stressful
(elevated heart rate and stress-related hormones such as cortisol) than
the effect of transport itself. (Camp et al., 1981). Animals that are
unloaded, ``rested,'' and then re-loaded will not have rested at all.
See Recommendations for Cattle Transport Duration in the U.S.--
Executive Summary. Capable animal handlers, such as livestock
transporters, know that loading and unloading is extremely stressful,
therefore, it is recommended that handling during these events be
conducted slowly, gently, and quietly. (Grandin, 2014). Unloading and
re-loading livestock in transit takes significant time. Gonzalez et
al., (2012) reported loading and unloading times for commercially
transported cattle to be on average 20 and 30 minutes with maximums of
5 and 3 hours, respectively.
C. Livestock Haulers are Rare, Skilled, and Have a Proven Track Record
of Safety
Not just anyone can be a livestock hauler; many see themselves as
cattlemen/women first and truckers second. Our drivers are often part
of small businesses consisting of an owner-operator or perhaps a few
trucks. Their trailers are designed exclusively for the transport of
livestock, which means when a driver decides to become a livestock
hauler, they are usually unable to haul other types of cargo. As such,
there is very little cross-over between the haulers of live animals and
the haulers of traditional cargo, which can lead to serious trucker
shortages, especially during peak sale seasons.
The drivers that transport our animals work hard to further the
interests of motorists and the wellbeing of the animals with which they
are charged. Simply put, a livestock hauler is required by the nature
of their live cargo to drive slower and more cautiously than a
conventional cargo hauler because the live animals being hauled can
move throughout the trailer and can be severely injured if the driver
turns too suddenly, drives too fast, or stops too quickly. Safety of
other motorists, our drivers, and the animals they haul is so important
to the livestock industry that many livestock haulers have participated
in additional specialized training, including the pork industry's
Transport Quality Assurance (TQA) program and the beef industry's
Master Cattle Transporter (MCT) program.
Due to all of this, livestock haulers boast a fantastic safety
record. For instance, the Large Truck Crash Causation Study, conducted
by the FMCSA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Institute, showed
that of 1,123 accidents involving trucks hauling cargo, a mere five
involved livestock transporters. Similarly, Trucks Involved in Fatal
Accidents Factbook 2008, a report conducted by the Transportation
Research Institute, shows that of 4,352 trucks involved in fatal
accidents, livestock haulers accounted for just 0.6 percent.
IV. Outreach and Enforcement Continue to be a Challenge
Although we appreciate the increased efforts FMCSA and carrier
enforcement have made with respect to outreach and training, additional
work in these spaces is necessary to keep drivers and livestock safe.
It continues to be apparent that carrier enforcement requires specific
training on what to do with livestock in-transit when a livestock
hauler is taken out of service. It is simply unacceptable for live
animals to suffer by being left to stand on a hot, stagnant trailer
because of driver non-compliance. As such, we would strongly support
continued coordination and cooperation between the Agency and industry
to create plans for these situations and to troubleshoot issues as they
arise. Some states have a head start with the livestock industry and
transportation officials already making plans for these situations
while others have not broached the topic.
V. Need for Relief
Incompatibilities between the HOS rules and the live animal hauling
industry highlighted by the Electronic Logging Device (ELD) mandate
have caused considerable disruption and freight price increases. Many
farms and ranches are not within 11 hours of where the animals they
raise must be shipped. Live animal haulers can safely travel greater
distances than prescribed by HOS if they are allowed to more naturally
manage their rest and work times.
The current HOS provide a too-rigid one-size-fits-all framework for
transportation that results in live animals being left to stand for 10
hours at a time on trailers leading to significant mortality losses or
being unloaded at midway pen systems presenting challenges from
logistics, liability, animal welfare, and biosecurity standpoints. The
reality is that the current HOS rules and the strict compliance with
those regulations made necessary by ELDs will result in cattle on the
coasts, in the Southeast, and the rangelands of the Northwest
experiencing a regional discount or, even worse, being unmarketable or
wholly unprofitable to raise. This will lead to livestock haulers,
farmers, and ranchers going out of business. It will also be felt in a
very real way by the American consumer trying to put an affordable meal
on the table.
The goal of the HOS regulations is to prevent driver fatigue and
therefore reduce the number and severity of both fatal and non-fatal
accidents. The long record of safe operation by the agricultural
commodity hauling industry is evidence of the seriousness which the
industry takes these issues.
VI. Requested Relief
Perishable commodity haulers need more flexibility in order to
safely get their cargo to its destination. The LMA sincerely
appreciates several members of this subcommittee for their assistance
and diligent work toward safe and practical solutions for our Nation's
agricultural haulers.
The LMA participates in regular conversations with the FMCSA in
conjunction with a cross-industry coalition of associations. The
coalition continues to participate in public hearings and comment
periods, representing the needs of livestock haulers, marketers, and
producers. We appreciate the Agency's efforts to create workable
solutions for the trucking industry as a whole, as evidenced by the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published on August 23, 2019,
which sought stakeholder input on proposed changes to the HOS.
Unfortunately, as described in the coalition's comments to the NPRM,
the modifications proposed do not specifically address the unique
challenges faced by our drivers, and additional solutions are
necessary.
On October 15, 2018, the coalition also filed a request for a 5-
year program specific to livestock haulers for modified HOS in exchange
for extra training and documentation requirements. At present, the
Agency has not acted on that request.
The LMA and the rest of our agricultural coalition would also
encourage Congress to support a technical amendment and clarification
to apply the agricultural exemption found in 49 CFR 395.1(k)(1) to the
both the source and destination of a livestock haul to account for
unloading and wait time at livestock processing facilities, which can
equate to delays of more than 1 hour.
We are confident driver and animal safety can both be preserved and
even improved through logical, data-driven flexibilities.
VII. Conclusion
In the end, agricultural haulers and livestock transporters are
sincerely concerned with the impact transportation regulations--both
new and old--are having on our country's safe and economical food
supply. Rigid HOS requirements do not work for livestock haulers. We
appreciate the recognition of Congress and the Agency that livestock
haulers are unique and look forward to continuing to work together to
find solutions for this targeted segment of drivers. The safety of our
roadways is of great importance and it can be coupled with practical
solutions to address the need for humane and efficient transportation
of live animals.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, sir. Finally, I would like to
welcome Sergeant John Samis with the Delaware State Police. He
is the President of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance.
Welcome, sir.
STATEMENT OF SERGEANT JOHN SAMIS, DELAWARE STATE POLICE; AND
PRESIDENT, COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SAFETY ALLIANCE
Mr. Samis. Good morning, Chairman Fischer, Ranking Member
Duckworth, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for
inviting me to participate in today's discussion. As a Sergeant
with the Delaware State Police, I supervise our CMV enforcement
program and serve as President of the Commercial Vehicle Safety
Alliance, which represents people who enforce CMV safety
regulations throughout North America.
As the trucking industry continues to evolve, technology is
playing a leading role in constantly redefining the industry.
The enforcement community must prepare for the future of
trucking in order to meet our shared goal of reducing crashes
and fatalities involving CMVs. In my written testimony, we
highlight the progress made under the FAST Act and propose a
number of recommendations aimed at further improving CMV
safety. One of the most significant things Congress can do to
help improve safety is provide the enforcement community with
the flexibility and resources needed to address a growing
industry that becomes more sophisticated by the day. CVSA
members work with industry and FMCSA to reduce crashes and save
lives.
Enforcement officials inspect vehicles, interact with
drivers, review motor carriers, and work to ensure that those
operating on our roadways do so safely. The roadside
enforcement program has helped to significantly reduce the
number of crashes and fatalities that involve CMVs. However,
the program provides only the foundation for a comprehensive
approach to reaching zero fatalities.
States build on that program with initiatives designed to
meet their unique needs all with the goal of eliminating CMV
involved crashes. Enforcement is only a portion of what the
states do. There are outreach and education campaigns,
technology deployments, and a focus on crash prevention and
high-risk areas, as well as other creative programs designed to
help industry understand and comply with safety requirements.
Congress can help by giving the states the flexibility and
funding needed to address their own, unique safety needs,
meeting their core responsibility of conducting inspections and
ensuring regulatory compliance by also innovating to keep pace
with industry. For example, we are asking Congress to make two
small changes to the grant programs that help fund State CMV
enforcement activities.
First, we are asking for an additional year to spend grant
funds. We are also asking that FMCSA like FHWA be given the
authority to reallocate unspent funds rather than return them
to the treasury. We need to keep every dollar allocated to
critical safety programs where they belong. In addition, states
need the tools to operate an effective program. Given the
growing size and complexity of the trucking industry,
jurisdictions do not have the resources to inspect every
vehicle, driver, and motor carrier on a regular basis.
As a result, inspectors interact with only a fraction of
the trucks on the road. To maximize resources, jurisdictions
use a combination of methods and technologies to identify
vehicles, drivers, and carriers for intervention. Work is being
done to update crash causation and reporting data to give
jurisdictions better information on which to build their
program.
If we can better understand where, why, and how crashes are
occurring, we can do more to prevent them. CVSA encourages
Congress to provide DOT with the resources necessary to
maintain the data set that will inform the next generation of
safety programs. Specifically, CVSA supports funding an update
to the crash causation study. In addition, it is important that
regulations keep pace with the evolving motor carrier industry.
For example, as we move to more and more advanced safety
systems and CMVs, the enforcement community must have the
resources to effectively regulate industry. CVSA has asked
NHTSA to consider establishing a universal electronic
identifier for all CMVs. The ability to electronically identify
each truck from a short-range would revolutionize the roadside
inspection program and improve roadway safety.
Finally, as you draft transportation safety policy for the
next decade, please consider how the enforcement community will
implement those policies. Establishing new policies without
considering the practical impact can lead to inconsistency and
unnecessary tension between industry and enforcement. CVSA is
asking Congress to incorporate an implementation window
requirement in any future exemption. This will allow states
time to receive guidance and train inspectors, leading to
greater uniformity, which benefits both industry and
enforcement.
Thank you for including me in today's discussion. We, like
our partners in industry and at DOT, are committed to saving
lives. To reach that goal, it is important that everyone
involved have the tools needed to do their part. For the
states, that means program flexibility and funding to support
comprehensive and innovative programs that take dangerous
drivers, vehicles, and carriers off the roadway. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Samis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sergeant John Samis, Delaware State Police; and
President, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
Introduction
Chairman Fischer, Ranking Member Duckworth and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to participate in today's
important discussion on ``Keep on Truckin': Stakeholder Perspectives on
Trucking in America.''
My name is John Samis. I am a sergeant with the Delaware State
Police, and I currently serve as 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 provide a snapshot of
the current state of commercial motor vehicle safety and enforcement
initiatives, as well as outline our 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.
Background
CVSA represents the men and women responsible for removing
dangerous vehicles, drivers and motor carriers from our roadways.
Congress provides funding to the states through the Motor Carrier
Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) to support the states' commercial
motor vehicle safety and enforcement programs. States use the 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 13,000 full and
part time commercial motor vehicle safety professionals. These people
conduct more than 3.5 million commercial motor vehicle roadside
inspections, 64,000 new entrant safety audits and 6,000 compliance
reviews each year.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``2019 Pocket Guide to Large Truck and Bus Statistics.''
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. January 2020. http://
www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/data-and-statistics/commercial-motor
-vehicle-facts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The states' work through MCSAP saves lives every day, keeping
dangerous vehicles, and unqualified and unsafe drivers off the Nation's
roads. According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA), the agency regulates 560,809 motor carriers, 6.6 million
commercial drivers and 12.2 million commercial motor vehicles.\2\ 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 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR). As we
look ahead to the future of the commercial motor vehicle industry, it
is apparent that states will need every resource available to keep pace
with an ever-growing and ever-changing industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``2019 Pocket Guide to Large Truck and Bus Statistics.''
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. January 2020. http://
www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/data-and-statistics/commercial-motor
-vehicle-facts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAST Act, Where We Stand Today and How to Move Forward
Significant progress for commercial motor vehicle safety was made
in the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015. The
bill included a major overhaul of and increased funding for MCSAP. In
addition, the bill included a number of changes to the regulatory
processes at FMCSA, directives to reduce redundancies and improve
information systems, and a number of necessary studies on relevant
commercial motor vehicle related issues. As a result, today we have
more streamlined programs, are able to spend more of our time on
implementing the programs, rather than reporting on them, and are
working towards improved data collection and analysis.
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program Changes
Perhaps the most significant provision within Title V of the FAST
Act were the changes made to MCSAP. The bill completely rewrote
Sections 31102, 31103, 31104 and 31313 of Title 49 of U.S. Code, which
are the sections dealing with MCSAP, making a number of organizational
and programmatic changes. The goal of the consolidation and
reorganization was to reduce the administrative burden for both FMCSA
and the states by reducing the number of grant programs and focusing
the bulk of the program in the formula grant, which is more quickly
administered and more stable than competitive grants. Fewer grant
programs means fewer applications for the states to submit and report
on and for FMCSA to review and administer, cutting down on unnecessary
paperwork and streamlining the grant process. Though, of course, there
is always room for improvement.
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.
Meanwhile, as we approach the end of the FAST Act authorization
cycle, FMCSA is working to finalize implementation of some of the
bill's provisions. 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 a notice of
proposed rulemaking outlining the new proposed structure was published
last fall. Once complete, the new MCSAP formula will have a tremendous
impact on the efficacy of the new MCSAP structure.
We are hopeful that the final rule will be published early this
year and work can begin on putting the new formula in place. 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 (such as expanding initiatives and hiring new staff)
before they know what funding will look like in the future. As a
result, innovative programs and technology deployments are being placed
on hold.
In addition, the agency is in the process of finalizing the move to
a three-year cycle for the state's commercial vehicle safety plans.
These plans document how the state has met their safety goals for the
past year and how MCSAP funds for the coming fiscal year will be spent
in order to meet target goals for enhancing safety. Moving to a three-
year cycle for the reporting will reduce the administrative burden on
states and free up more time and resources for other priorities.
The states and agency are both still adjusting and adapting to the
new structure, processes and requirements, as well as waiting for the
final few pieces to be put in place. However, overall, feedback to date
has been largely positive. We'd like to thank this committee for their
work in putting those changes in place. As we evaluate the outcome of
the FAST Act changes and look towards the next highway bill, CVSA has
identified a few small adjustments related to MCSAP funding that could
be made to build on this progress. These recommendations are discussed
in the following section.
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program Funding
The commercial motor vehicle enforcement landscape is constantly
evolving and changing as Congress and FMCSA work to refine and improve
the FMCSRs, and industry advances. Despite these challenges, MCSAP, as
administered by the states, has been successful in improving safety on
our Nation's roadways, in spite of a steady increase in the number of
commercial motor vehicles operating on those roads. New and expanded
responsibilities mean improvements in safety, but only to the extent
the states have the resources to effectively implement those policies.
Recognizing this, Congress included in the FAST Act higher levels of
funding for MCSAP and other commercial motor vehicle-related grants.
I'd like to take a moment, on behalf of CVSA and its membership, to
thank the Members of this Committee for recognizing that fact and for
helping to ensure the higher funding levels in the FAST Act.
While the states are appreciative of the higher funding levels,
states experience an ongoing delay and lack of consistency in the
timing of funding disbursement, which prevents many from being able to
fully capitalize on the increases. In fiscal 2019, some grant funds
under MCSAP were allocated to the states as late as September, just
days before the end of the first year of the grant.
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, as you know, has
become more delayed each year. If the process worked as it should,
appropriations for the fiscal year would be finalized long 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.
The issue is further complicated by the fact that many states do not
follow the Federal fiscal calendar (most start July 1), which impacts
their reporting and tracking process. When funds do become available,
the grant review and approval process takes 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 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. These delays can also leave a state with too little time to
spend the funds, once they are awarded. If states are unable to spend
the funds in the grant period of performance, they are forced to
deobligate the money, returning it to FMCSA. FMCSA, in turn, is
required to return unspent funds at the end of each grant period of
performance. Requiring FMCSA to return the funds to the treasury takes
much needed funding away from critical safety programs and makes long
term funding for states even more unreliable.
To help address this issue, we are asking, first, that states be
given an extra year to spend grant funds, to account for the delays
that consume most of the first eligible year of the grant. In addition,
we are asking that FMCSA be given the authority, like other agencies,
to keep the unspent funds and reallocate them. This will provide states
with more flexibility and stability, which in turn will result in
stronger, more robust programs. Simply put, these are funds that
Congress allocated to be spent on critical commercial motor vehicle
safety programs. We should not let process and circumstances prevent
those much-needed funds from being used by the states. Unspent funds
should remain within MCSAP, for FMCSA to reallocate to states that can
quickly and effectively spend the money. Finally, recognizing that
future funding for MCSAP is directly tied to the long-term solvency of
the Highway Trust Fund, CVSA supports ongoing efforts to identify
sustainable, long-term revenue sources to address the Highway Trust
Fund insolvency, in order to ensure stability for MCSAP, as well as
other important safety-related programs.
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 FMCSRs understand their
responsibilities and that those tasked with enforcing 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.
Unfortunately, regulatory activity at the agency--one of FMCSA's
basic responsibilities--has come to a near standstill, and the
necessary work of maintaining and updating 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 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.
To help address these inconsistencies, the FAST Act required FMCSA
to conduct a regular review of active guidance documents and routinely
incorporate appropriate guidance into the regulations in a timely
manner, a requirement that was supported by CVSA. This process, once
complete, will help clarify a number of inconsistencies in regulation.
This, in turn, will help improve the quality and uniformity of the more
than four million roadside inspections conducted annually throughout
North America.
However, reforming the regulatory guidance process will only
address a portion of the issue. The underlying regulations must be
updated and maintained regularly, in order to keep pace with
advancements in industry and safety. For example, as regulators
evaluate the impacts of automated driving systems on interstate
transportation, they should consider the effects of this technology on
the enforcement community and provide clear, uniform and enforceable
standards. It is imperative that the regulations be updated to account
for driver-assisted and, eventually, driverless vehicles. These updates
to the regulations need to be put in place now, so they are complete
and well understood before wide-spread deployment of automated
commercial motor vehicles are on our roadways. This does not
necessarily mean NEW regulations; only that existing regulations must
be adjusted to accommodate the future of the trucking industry.
Likewise, a number of petitions from CVSA and other organizations
calling for various technical corrections, updates and adjustments to
the FMCSRs sit before the agency, unaddressed. There are a number of
factors that contribute to the growing delay in regulatory action at
FMCSA, and many of these factors are outside the agency's control. The
result is that critical work maintaining the FMCSRs, something only the
agency can do, is falling behind. CVSA strongly encourages Congress to
ensure that FMCSA is given the resources needed to prioritize the day-
to-day maintenance of the regulations, meet obligations set forth by
Congress and prepare for the future.
Exemptions
Another challenge facing the enforcement community is inconsistency
in the regulations caused by exceptions, exemptions and waivers. The
Federal safety regulations help 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 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 and are trained after every regulatory
update or change. Significant training and continuing education ensure
inspectors and roadside enforcement officials fully understand and
effectively communicate the regulations they enforce.
Clarity, consistency, uniformity and enforceability are the
cornerstones of an effective regulatory framework. Confusion and
inconsistencies create more work for the enforcement community and have
the potential to frustrate the motor carrier industry. 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 FAST Act included a
number of legislative exemptions from the safety regulations. CVSA is
generally opposed to the inclusion of exemptions in legislation. We
recognize there may be instances when exemptions are appropriate and do
not compromise safety; however, overall, CVSA believes exemptions have
the potential to undermine safety and complicate enforcement. Every new
exemption is an opportunity for confusion and inconsistency in
enforcement, diverting scarce resources from other activities and
undermining the program's effectiveness. While CVSA has no specific
opposition to many of the exemptions on an individual basis,
complications have already surfaced regarding their implementation.
Problems begin with the adoption of exemptions. While the
exemptions were 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
Federal regulatory policy into their own state law and code. 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 related 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 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 industry and the
enforcement community wondering how the exemptions would work in the
meantime and, at times, creating 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 brought into the classroom 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. Moving forward, CVSA
encourages Congress to consider including an 18-month implementation
window or some other mechanism that allows other 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 regulatory responsibility, but if the
exemption cannot be implemented correctly and consistently, 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
General
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
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.
Agricultural Commodities
Currently, consideration is being given to whether or not the
agricultural industry should be given additional flexibility within the
hours-of-service regulations. CVSA has concerns with several of the
proposals being discussed, as for many of them `flexibility' translates
to additional on-duty and driving time. Additional driving and on-duty
time will expose drivers to a greater risk of fatigue, putting
themselves and the public at risk. Operators in the agricultural
industry already have a number of exemptions in place today that allow
them to drive well past the current limits. The hours-of-service
framework exists to prevent exactly this type of excessive driving that
causes fatigue.
Some in the industry point to a low level of annual crashes as
justification for the additional driving time. However, this argument
fails to recognize that the relatively low level of crashes is likely
due, in part, to the fatigue management of the very hours-of-service
framework they are seeking relief from. Further, the data used fails to
account for the safety impacts of recent changes made by FMCSA to the
150-air-mile agricultural commodity exemption. The guidance on the 150-
air-mile agricultural commodity exemption that was issued in May 2018
changed how on-duty and driving time is recorded once a driver leaves
the 150 air-mile radius. Prior to the change, if a driver left the 150
air-mile radius, they had to record all driving and on-duty time that
occurred within the 150 air-mile radius. Under the new guidance, all
on-duty activities and driving that occur within the 150 air-mile
radius is recorded as off-duty time, even if the driver leaves the 150
air-mile radius. So, in theory, a driver could be on-duty and/or drive
within the 150 air-mile radius for 8 hours, leave it and only then
start their clock. For agricultural carriers, this change significantly
increases the amount of time they are able to work and drive, exposing
them to increased risk of fatigue. This significant change and the
subsequent impacts on crash rates have not been evaluated. Further
expanding the distance of the current air-mile radius exemption or
expanding the workday in general at this point will only result in more
tired drivers.
CVSA also supports requiring that the agricultural community now be
required to install electronic logging devices. They have been exempted
from the requirement, as they argued the mandate would have a
disproportionate impact on their industry, due to the rigid nature of
the hours-of-service rules. Given that FMCSA has provided additional
flexibility within the rules themselves, we believe it's time for this
sector of the industry to adopt electronic logging devices.
We recognize the nature of the commodities they are hauling--they
are live animals and/or perishable products. The enforcement community
is not seeking to penalize the agricultural community or hurt their
business. We live in these communities. These are our neighbors,
friends and relatives. We recognize that complying with safety
regulations can make business more difficult and require adjustments
and additional expense. But fatigue does not vary based on what a
driver is hauling and compliance with the safety regulations is part of
the requirements to operate in commerce.
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 also 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. While 46 miles may
not be the appropriate distance here in the U.S., it demonstrates that
setting a fixed distance is feasible. FMCSA should set a quantifiable
distance that drivers are allowed to log as personal conveyance.
Data Quality
Uniform, timely and accurate data is the cornerstone of the Motor
Carrier Safety Assistance Program. Enforcement personnel, along with
state and Federal agencies, use information on a motor carrier's past
performance to help prioritize motor carriers for roadside inspections
and compliance reviews. Performance data from the commercial motor
vehicle industry is used to identify trends and problem areas, and to
craft enforcement and education initiatives to target specific safety
problems. Data is not only used to evaluate whether or not enforcement
is being conducted uniformly, but also to determine whether or not a
particular safety program or concept is successful. Data is used to
determine whether enforcement funds are being used in the most
efficient, effective manner possible. In order to effectively and
efficiently perform these activities, the states and the Federal
government must be able to rely on the data being compiled in the
various systems being accurate and as uniform as possible, in order to
make comparisons.
As technology and data collection continues to advance and improve,
our state programs will only grow in their reliance on data. Congress
recognized this fact and included a number of provisions in the FAST
Act having to do with improving FMCSA's information technology (IT)
systems and data quality. Section 5504 of the bill directed the
Comptroller General to conduct a comprehensive analysis of FMCSA's IT
and data collection and management systems and to make recommendations
on how to improve both the functionality of the systems and the quality
of the data collection and analysis. In addition, Section 5224 directed
FMCSA to implement certain hardcoding and smart logic standards within
the inspection software, in order to improve the data quality coming
from inspection reports.
CVSA is following the implementation of both requirements closely
and looks forward to working with the agency as they move forward.
Finally, many within the transportation industry recognize that the we
need better data on crashes. FMCSA has begun gathering information on
the costs and parameters associated with updating the agency's crash
causation study. If completed, this study would give jurisdictions
better information on which to build their programs. If we can better
understand where, why and how crashes are occurring, we can do more to
prevent them. CVSA encourages Congress to provide DOT the resources to
maintain the data sets that will inform the next generation of safety
programs. Specifically, CVSA supports funding an update to the crash
causation study.
Safety Technology
General
As budgets continue to tighten and technology continues to advance,
it is imperative that those in the safety and enforcement communities
take full advantage of technological advancements that improve safety
and demonstrate a net benefit to society. CVSA supports legislation and
policies that encourage the deployment of safety technologies proven,
through independent research, to improve commercial motor vehicle
safety, either through preventing crashes or mitigating the severity of
crashes. CVSA also supports giving states the flexibility to deploy
technology that helps support effective enforcement programs.
Universal Electronic Vehicle Identifier
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 issue an
advance notice of proposed rulemaking to explore the feasibility of
requiring all commercial motor vehicles 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 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 identify vehicles, drivers and
motor carriers in need of an intervention while allowing safe,
compliant vehicles and drivers 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. CVSA encourages Congress to direct
NHTSA to initiate the rulemaking so this important discussion can
begin.
Automated Driving Systems
Finally, much of the discussion on safety technology in the
transportation arena currently revolves around the deployment of
commercial motor vehicles equipped with various levels of automation.
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.
5.9 GHz Spectrum Band
CVSA is following with interest the ongoing discussion regarding
the possible release of a portion of the 5.9 GHz Spectrum Band. CVSA,
along with many other organizations in the transportation safety realm,
have grave concerns regarding the Federal Communications Commission's
proposal to reallocate the majority of the 5.9 GHz band for unlicensed
devices. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), which has also
weighed in against the move, has research that indicates this proposal
would also likely cause significant interference with vehicle to
everything (V2X) technologies operating in the remaining spectrum,
which could render the spectrum useless for transportation safety. We
are on the cusp of the next revolution in transportation, with
potential for real safety benefits from connected and smarter vehicles,
along with more sophisticated and effective enforcement tools. It is
critical that this portion of the spectrum remain dedicated to life
saving safety technology.
Under 21-Year Old Drivers
As freight volumes continue to increase, some of our industry
partners struggle to find qualified drivers to fill vacancies. As a
result, discussions are occurring around the idea of allowing 18 to 20-
year old drivers to operate commercial motor vehicles interstate. Last
year, FMCSA issued a notice requesting comment on how the agency might
structure a pilot program to explore the impacts of this change. CVSA
filed comments, noting that there is value in conducting such a pilot
program to assess the impacts of allowing younger drivers to operate in
interstate commerce. However, careful consideration to the program's
structure is necessary to ensure the outcome provides relevant data on
which to make future policy determinations.
In the notice, FMCSA proposed including a number of safety
technology requirements in the pilot program. CVSA has long been a
strong proponent of policies that will help deploy proven safety
technologies. It is critical that FMCSA conduct a pilot program that
will provide reliable, accurate data on which to base future policy
determinations. If the agency includes safety technologies in the
pilot, the results will likely be skewed, as participants will perform
better as a result of the safety technology. The program results would
not be reflective of the actual commercial motor vehicle driving fleet
and would not serve as a sound basis for future policy decisions.
Consideration must be given to how the program is implemented, ensuring
the pilot is reflective of how any future program would work. So, if
additional safety technologies are required and, based on that
structure, the agency determines that allowing younger drivers to
operate in interstate commerce is a safe and prudent decision, those
same technologies should be required for all younger drivers to operate
going forward. Similarly, if the agency places additional restrictions
on the motor carriers or drivers themselves, those same requirements
should be part of any permanent program that is put into place.
It has been suggested that before younger drivers are allowed to
operate interstate, FMCSA should examine data on intrastate driver
performance, as drivers under the age of 21 are allowed to operate
intrastate in every state in the country. While this data may prove to
be informative, it is critical that it be considered under the right
context. Intrastate movements by drivers under 21 years of age are not
likely comparable to long haul commercial motor vehicle loads. Many of
these intrastate trips are short haul, with drivers returning home
every night. In addition, in many cases, these moves will take place
either in extremely rural areas or in densely populated urban centers,
both of which come with a unique set of challenges and exposure
considerations. This does not mean that the data cannot be reviewed and
incorporated, only that any conclusions being drawn from such data take
into consideration and account for these factors. Finally, like many
others, CVSA supports prohibiting these younger drivers from
transporting passengers or hazardous materials, as a crash involving
either poses a more significant risk than general cargo.
Detention Time
Drivers continue to face challenges at pickup and delivery
locations, resulting in delays that impact their hours of service and
productivity. The FAST Act included a provision calling for DOT to
study the issue of driver detention time. This a well-documented
challenge, with clear impacts on motor carrier safety, particularly
with regards to fatigue management. CVSA encourages Congress to work
with stakeholders to address the ongoing issue with driver detention
time.
Truck Parking
Related is the ongoing challenge of providing commercial motor
vehicle drivers with adequate, safe parking facilities, strategically
placed throughout the U.S. This is a critical commercial motor vehicle
safety issue. Parking facilities need to be available to drivers who
are trying to comply with hours-of-service requirements, as well as
those who are fatigued. Without adequate parking facilities, drivers
are faced with either driving over hours or parking in an unsafe
location. CVSA supports investments that address the Nation's truck
parking shortage.
Conclusion
The FAST Act included a number of changes that will have a positive
impact on the Nation's roadway safety and work has been completed or is
currently underway to implement a majority of those requirements.
However, there is more work to be done, as recent traffic fatality data
reflects an upward trend in crashes and fatalities involving commercial
motor vehicles. 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,
and to ensure that the states and FMCSA are given the resources and
flexibility to maintain their core programs while also building upon
them and keeping pace with industry. As the state agencies responsible
for commercial motor vehicle enforcement, we look forward to working
with the Members of this Committee, FMCSA, our industry partners and
other stakeholders to continue working towards our shared goal of
preventing deaths, injuries and crashes on the Nation's roadways. We
are committed to meeting our mission.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Sergeant. And thank you to all
the panel members for your opening statements. I would like to
begin my questions with Mr. Spear and Mr. Pugh. I share many of
the sentiments that both of you expressed regarding the need
for more flexible hours of service requirements across the
trucking industry.
I also appreciate the efforts that we have seen from the
FMCSA to update those requirements. Could each of you briefly
explain what you see as the key change that is going to be
needed in the hours of service requirements to help provide
truckers with the flexibility they need while also making sure
that we don't see any kind of negative impact on safety.
Mr. Pugh. Yes, I think one of the key facts is--one of the
things that was petitioned for was the 3-hour, be able to
extend your clock by 3 hours as far as if you would need to
take a nap, traffic, something to that effect. But with that
being said, there needs to be the added protection for the
driver to where the driver has control of that time and not a
motor carrier, not a shipper, or not a receiver, or anything of
that effect.
If the driver feels that he needs to take a nap or there is
unsafe conditions, weather conditions or whatever, he has that
opportunity to do it but not before us to do it, again, by a
carrier or someone like that. With that being said, that is
where the current version comes in. FMCSA has the hotline and
that is the one thing we have been asking for is for FMCSA to
be a little stricter on that. At OOIDA, we never hear anything
coming back from any of the complaints that are being filed by
us for our members. So that is the one main concern. Put the
power in the driver's hands. Give him that added extra
flexibility.
Senator Fischer. Thank you. Mr. Spear.
Mr. Spear. Yes, Chair. I want to be quick to point out that
this is a live rulemaking. It is one that we do believe is
necessary, but we haven't seen the final product yet. So I
don't want to prejudge it. In the advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking, we see the four parts that the Department has
proposed looking at. We are encouraged that it is moving in the
right direction. They have taken all the comments, and it was
voluminous, back, digested it and we believe, you know, this
year we will see a final product.
Without seeing the results of those comments yet, it has
been a bit difficult to predict what it is going to say, but I
do think it needs to reflect the realities that are happening
out on the road. The flexibility that the industry and the
drivers need, we share that concern. Adverse driving
conditions, when a driver can take the 30 minute break when
they are tired, not when the Government tells them they are
tired, split sleeper berth.
Common sense really needs to prevail here. The rule really
needs to reflect reality, not something that is designed from a
set of cubicles here in Washington, D.C. So we are optimistic
that this rule will do that. I like the fact that they took
such time and attention to all the comments across the
spectrum. Once we see the final product, it will be something I
think we can comment more on in detail.
Senator Fischer. OK. I assume your Association made
comments?
Mr. Spear. Yes, definitely.
Senator Fischer. And were those the points that you made,
that you had in your testimony?
Mr. Spear. Indeed, yes.
Senator Fischer. Thank you. Mr. Parnell, you mentioned in
your testimony that livestock haulers must receive additional
transport training. Specifically, you mentioned the Transport
Quality Assurance Program for the pork industry and the Master
Cattle Transporter Program for the beef industry. Can you
elaborate on the training that these programs provide,
particularly as it would help with truck safety.
Mr. Parnell. I can't--you know these programs that have
been developed through the beef quality assurance program with
NCBA and the couple of other programs that you highlighted, it
takes it from step one all the way through the transportation.
So it starts with the, you know, many times truckers are
involved in the loading of their actual freight, the live
animals on the truck.
Talks about the handling of the, the handling of the
animals once they get on the roadway, the need to drive
probably slower because a lot of what we do is in, you know,
very rural conditions and not always paved roads. It talks
about there are parts of the program that teach them about
judging their own fatigue and how to handle that, and the
proper times, and again it goes back to some flexibility. When
they need to have a chance to pull over and take a nap.
Senator Fischer. Can you specifically address the
flexibility that would be needed when you are hauling
livestock. For example, if there is a rule that says you have
to pull over at a certain time, what does that involve? Do you
have to unload?
Mr. Parnell. Well, yes, to do it the correct way, safely
for the animals, you would have to pull over either--unload
those animals at a facility that can handle those animals.
Senator Fischer. And how many of those facilities do you
usually run across as you are transporting across country?
Mr. Parnell. Close to highway, there is not very many. It
is a very challenging part.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, sir. I would like to recognize
Senator Duckworth.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Chairwoman Fisher. And
Illinois is one of the Nation's largest pork producers so I am
very sympathetic to the challenges, but I do want to start off
by talking about the 5.9-gigahertz spectrum.
In response to my question last week about DOT's First
Responder Safety Technology Pilot Program Under Secretary
Szabat stated that this new program is designed to demonstrate
the benefits of V2X technologies for emergency response
vehicles using the 5.9-gigahertz safety band.
In December, the Federal Communications Commission released
a proposal to reallocate more than half of this 5.9-gigahertz
band to unlicensed operations like Wi-Fi. And Mr. Spare, you
touched on this.
In the interest of time though, by a quick show of hands.
Who here has concerns with the recent actions taken by the FCC
to reallocate the 5.9 gigahertz band?
[Raised hands.]
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. With a quick yes or no, those
who raised your hands, do you oppose FCC's proposal?
Mr. Samis. Yes.
Mr. Spear. Yes.
Senator Duckworth. Anyone else?
[No response.]
Senator Duckworth. OK, thank you. Sergeant Samis, thank you
for your service protecting us, not just Delaware's roadways,
but I am sure you extend beyond the state as well. One of my
priorities is working to reduce and eliminate law enforcement
fatalities from roadside accidents. Last year, Chairman Fischer
and I asked a Government Accountability Office to review State
level move over laws.
Our Subcommittee is seeking to better understand how these
policies are working and to examine opportunities for the
Federal Government to enhance these State initiatives. In
addition, Senator Durbin and I recently introduced the
Protecting Roadside First Responders Act to promote the
development and use of safety technologies that reduce accident
risk for those who need to stop along busy highways.
Your testimony mentioned the benefits of deploying
universal electronic vehicle identifiers for commercial
vehicles. Could you please address how these identifiers could
improve public safety? And what do you say to stakeholders who
raise privacy concerns?
Mr. Samis. First of all, thank you for your work to help
protect my brothers and sisters in law enforcement. That is
greatly appreciated. To your question, given the size of the
motor carrier industry, jurisdictions do not have the resources
necessary to inspect every vehicle out there on the roadway,
obviously. To maximize the resources, states must prioritize
enforcement activities and utilize technology to continue to
increase efficiency.
With the universal electronic vehicle identifier, it would
help us identify which trucks or carriers might be more likely
to have issues, and then we can concentrate our efforts on
those carriers.
As far as the privacy concerns go, the universal electronic
vehicle identifier would not transmit any data other than a
specific truck is going down the roadway and then we would take
that specific truck's identifier and run it through the systems
that we are already currently using to identify the carrier and
their safety record. So, privacy does not seem to be a concern
to CVSA.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. And I want to commend
Chairman Fischer and others for their efforts to expand career
opportunities for service members and veterans. We should do
more to break down barriers for those who have served our
Nation. However, I am wary of claims about workforce shortages
in the transportation sector or any sector when there hasn't
been a meaningful increase in wages.
After all, increasing wages is the free market's response
to labor shortages, relaxing safety standards is not. And that
has been my concern with the push by some aviation stakeholders
to weaken pilot training standards put in place after the
tragic crash of Colgan flight 33407. So instead of increasing
wages, they want to allow pilots to fly with less hours of
training.
FMCSA is developing a pilot program to understand the
safety impacts of allowing 18 to 20 year old drivers to operate
large trucks for the purpose of interstate commerce. Ms. King,
what data is available or unavailable that could inform
Congress about the safety of proposals to expand trucking to
those with the least amount of experience?
Ms. King. Well, like what has already been said, there are
at least 48 states that allow 18-year-olds to drive semi-trucks
within their state boundaries. So, there is data available
already on what the crash levels are for younger drivers, and
we believe that FMCSA and DOT should be studying that data
before they just extend this offering to 18-year-olds to drive
interstate.
We also believe that these young people would be the new
hires and they are not likely to get the comfortable job where
they get to drive the 10-mile route back and forth and they are
home every night with their family. Nobody who is in their
first job gets the best routes, and so we are concerned that
the younger drivers will end up on the longer routes that will
take them into states they are not familiar with. So we really
believe that the crash data that is within the states needs to
be studied first.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. And I would like to give Mr.
Pugh a chance to talk a little bit about young, especially
military drivers because having had a--by the way, I am a
military driver license myself. I know the quality of the young
drivers, especially those coming out the military who can be
just as capable. Would you like to address that?
Mr. Pugh. Yes. I will be more than happy to. I would agree
that the 18 to 20 year olds, we don't feel that they are safe.
As someone who had a CDL, drove a truck at a farm and got my
CDL through the service, I would agree that I learned the
skills on how to operate a truck and maneuver a truck very well
in the United States Army and I am thankful for that.
But I still think there is further training it needs to be
issued because driving a truck and military life, as I am sure
you are well aware, is much, much different from driving trucks
in civilian life. You were usually in convoy, you were
usually--had people overseeing where you were going you were
going. You were usually on designated routes and you weren't
just turned loose.
When I turned 21 and went to work as a civilian trucker, I
was just turned loose. And again, I was fortunate to have been
trained with the skill, but as far as the knowledge in the real
world, the knowledge of what is out there, I was lucky I didn't
have any accidents or anything happen. But that is real world
knowledge that would have been nice to add a little more
training on before I was just turned loose.
I would like to follow up too with, hiring these younger
drivers, who is going to hire them? Because who is going to
insure them? Because that was one of the biggest problems, I
had at 21 years old stepping out of the United States Army with
a CDL. I only found two motor carriers at the time that would
give me a job. And as Ms. King said, it wasn't a very good job.
Then at 22, I bought my own truck and then I struggled with
finding carriers that would lease me because of my age and my
lack of experience even though I owned the truck and trailer.
And I was fortunate enough to find opportunities, but I was
25 years old until the doors pretty much opened for me to drive
for anybody or everybody. And I understand why because it is
dangerous. I needed those years to learn and train because
there was and is no training. We need more training out there.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. I am way over time. Mr.
Spear, if you could submit a response via written format, I
would really appreciate that.
Mr. Spear. More than happy.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Chairwoman. You are very
generous.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Duckworth.
Senator Lee.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH
Senator Lee. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you for all
being here and for your insight today. Mr. Parnell, I would
like to start with you. In your written testimony, you have
pointed out some of the unintended consequences of strict hours
of service rules. These are rules that are certainly well
intentioned, and they are also rules that sometimes being the
one-size-fits-all tools that they are, can put some undue and
impractical consequences on all commercial drivers.
And sometimes they don't necessarily yield the benefit that
we want. Sometimes, for example, they can actually cause and
increase harm by encouraging drivers to stop in places where
they shouldn't be stopping or where it is not safe for them to
stop along the side of the road on an interstate highway, for
example, in order to comply with an overly rigid regulatory
structure. That can cause safety problem.
And this is of course, setting aside the issue that Senator
Fischer mentioned a moment ago of the harm and the stress that
can come from doing that when you are dealing with livestock or
when you are dealing with insects like bees, that can cause
some very significant problem. As Congress considers updating
its hours of service requirements, where do you see the biggest
need for reform across all commercial operations?
Mr. Parnell. Excuse me, as it relates directly to
agriculture and like we talked about, the part I am most
familiar with, which is hauling livestock, we are just very
unique. We are hauling a perishable product, a product that can
be injured.
And the flexibility--I know there has been numerous options
or different, you know, legislative answers that have been put
out there in the last Congress, some have been reintroduced
this Congress, and LMA and NCBA, we petitioned FMCSA for a
five-year test project that they have not given a public
decision on yet. I think it has been out for comment. We
introduced it 18 months ago. Twelve months ago, they introduced
it to comment, and we haven't really heard back about that yet.
That increased some hours of service, drive time, and
flexibility a little bit. There are specific solutions. You
know, for me, and you talked about not having the safest place
to pull over, not the safest place to drive fatigued--we talked
about regulation 49 CFR 39.1, which is the Ag commodity
exemption. We have talked about that exemption on the end of
hauls.
So as they get close to where they are going, if the roads,
if it is dark and they are on narrow roads, tough roads, they
can just pull over and have that flexibility to get to the part
of their destination very safe.
Senator Lee. It also appears that there is some ambiguity
within the hours of service regulations as to what constitutes
on-duty versus off-duty time. And it appears that even rest
stops, even rest breaks can still be considered a count against
the 14-hour clock. How might Congress provide better
definitions, to better clarify those definitions? Do you think
that is something we should clarify?
Mr. Parnell. I think it is something that needs to be
clarified and especially in our industry because there are
various times when we asked our specialized haulers to stop and
check their loads and make sure everything is safe, and they
are still on the clock during that 10 or 15 minute time working
against them.
Well, to me whose livelihood is dependent on that livestock
traveling safely, I want them to check, but because it also
affects my livelihood, the increased price that would take. If
we had to switch trucks or do other things with the hours of
service--I also want them to be able to make it there safely
and on time. So yes, I do think we need to do that.
Senator Lee. Mr. Spear, at the Competitive Enterprise
Institute has estimated that Federal regulations, while this is
impossible to quantify with precision, but they have estimated
that in 2016, compliance with Federal regulations cost the
American economy just under $2 trillion a year just in that
year alone.
Within Federal infrastructure projects, this ends up
costing not only consumers but it also ends up costing drivers,
moms and dads trying to get home just to be with their kids who
were stuck in traffic, and it also costs State Governments
additional money to comply with Federal regulations. There are
many estimates that put it at about 20 percent.
When you are using Federal funds, the Federal regulations
you have to comply with often increase the cost of that Federal
project by about 20 percent as compared to what it would be if
you were using State funds. There are instances that I have
heard of where it can be more like 30 or 40 percent in
particular projects.
So, this means that Federal dollars are sometimes being
used to fund a project that is unable to go as far as it would
otherwise. You know, sometimes regulations are necessary but
not all regulations are unnecessary and they create harmful
barriers to innovation and competition that end up harming
consumers, drivers, commercial and otherwise.
What do you think of the greatest regulatory costs in your
industry, and what challenges--what are some of the challenges
that you face that you consider necessary to address?
Mr. Spear. I think ,simply put infrastructure is safety.
And we need to look at it through that lens. We talk about
regulations, we talk about infrastructure, but they really are
synonymous. They are the same. Because if you have good
infrastructure, you have less traffic, you have less accidents,
you have more space in between the vehicles to do the things
they need to do. You also have obviously lower cost and impact
not just on the industry, but the economy.
So, infrastructure, having more of it, and well designed,
well engineered, really breeds good safety policy. In terms of
the regulatory side, we are not fearful of regulation. What we
do ask for is clear and concise regulation. When you have
ambiguity, you have litigation, and that adds costs on our
industry--horrendous cost.
So the balance between that and maintaining good safety
regulations that have a true and measurable impact, we
recommend supporting that. What we do think though is that
having expanded safety policy apply to infrastructure would be
a good thing. We lose $70 billion a year as an industry sitting
in traffic, and we are only 4 percent of the vehicles on the
road. That is, as I said earlier, over 425,000 drivers sitting
idle for an entire year.
In terms of the environmental impact, think about this for
a minute. Environmentalist don't want to speed up the
permitting process. I cannot possibly understand why because if
you have more efficient infrastructure, you have less
congestion. That is 67 million tons of CO2 being
emitted just sitting in traffic. If those trucks are moving,
they are not going to emit like that.
One modern truck today off the lot emits the same amount of
diesel particulate matter as 60 trucks in 1988. We are doing
all the right things. We are buying the newer, safer, more
energy and environmentally friendly equipment but without
infrastructure, you are going to have bad environmental policy,
bad safety policy.
So they are all connected in one another. And the cost of
all that, the impact on the industry and the economy goes down,
the more you invest in it.
Senator Lee. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Lee.
Senator Young.
STATEMENT OF HON. TODD YOUNG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA
Senator Young. Madam Chair and Ranking Member, thank so
much for holding this important hearing. Our employment is
reaching historic lows and national investment climate remains
incredibly strong. And we have this substantial driver shortage
in this country. And progressively, this threatens the long-
term economic stability of our country. We want to maintain
this longest period of economic expansion in American history.
Back home in Indiana, we like to call the crossroads of
America, and I have heard from countless constituents, both
drivers, other workers, and employers about the detrimental
impact that this driver shortage has on the ability to
efficiently receive and deliver freight. The truck driver
shortage is exacerbated by a rule mentioned by Mr. Spear that
prevents 18 to 20 year old drivers from crossing state lines.
Currently, 48 states allow people to obtain a commercial
driver's license and drive trucks at age 18, but Federal
regulations prevent those drivers from crossing state lines
until they turn 21. So if you are from the State of Indiana,
you can drive a truck up to Jeffersonville, Indiana or New
Albany, Indiana but you can't cross a river, the Ohio River and
go into Louisville. You can drive into Dearborn County,
Indiana, but you can't go over to Cincinnati or vice versa. So
you can drive it up to Lake County in the Northwest, you can't
go to Chicago.
One can understand how this would really disrupt our
commerce and threaten our economic expansion. That is why I
have introduced the DRIVE-Safe Act with Senator Tester and a
number of my colleagues on a broadly bipartisan basis that
would establish an apprenticeship program that will address
this driver shortage, create new career opportunities for young
Hoosiers and young folks around America, and substantially
raise training standards to ensure safety on our roads.
As we look toward reauthorization of the highway bill, I
encourage my colleagues to support this important truck safety
and workforce development bill. Mr. Spear, can you touch on the
pilot programs that DOT has already undertaken to address this
issue, and reiterate why it is important that we pass the
DRIVE-Safe Act to safely address the truck driver shortage.
Mr. Spear. Certainly Senator and thank you for your
leadership on this issue and the commentary. The Department of
Transportation, I believe, agrees with the policy, the path
that you are taking legislatively. Putting out the pilot
program for military personnel in this age bracket is one-step.
It is also an agency looking at broadening that pilot to non-
military personnel. But I want to take a step back on this for
a moment just so that we have some context, OK.
We are spending all our time talking about age. OK, let's
just say 18, 19, 20, but you are legal at 21. OK, so one-year
differential and you are legal. It is really not about age, it
is about training. Your bill has 400 hours of apprenticeship-
based training of which 240 hours you have to have an
experienced driver in the cab. You have technology, speed
governors, you got cameras, and you got mitigation collision
controls on that truck. Not one of the four--it is actually 49
now. Alaska just adopted.
So 49 states allow you to drive a Class 8 at 18 years old,
you just can't cross state lines. Your bill puts all this
training on top of that plus all this technology in addition to
that. This is a step toward safety. What I want to know from
everybody that is opposing this bill, where were they on the 49
states that allow you to drive 850 miles in California but
can't go 10 miles from Providence, Rhode Island into Rehoboth,
Massachusetts? That has got to be the dumbest policy I have
ever seen.
You remedy it with training and you remedy it with
technology. That is exactly what your bill does; it is exactly
what the DOT is doing. You served in the military. Thank you
for that. I have four kids. My oldest two, Army. I've got one
who's going to commission next year as a Second Lieutenant in
the Army. I have another one who's just started her plebe year
at the United States Military Academy at West Point.
I sleep pretty well at night. I don't know about my wife.
She worries as mothers do but I don't. Why? Because I know they
are getting the training they need to go off and protect our
country, to fight for our freedom. How are we willing to allow
18-year-olds to go off and do that, but we can't teach them how
to cross state lines in a Class 8? This bill is responsible. It
is safety-minded. It is the right thing to do.
Senator Young. Thank you, Mr. Spear. You had me until West
Point as a Naval Academy graduate. So I will allow you to have
the last word but I do ask unanimous consent to enter this
letter showing broad bipartisan national support for this
safety legislation into the record.
Senator Fischer. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
February 3, 2020
Hon. Roger Wicker,
Chairman,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell:
As the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee begins
its work on the safety title to accompany a surface transportation
reauthorization bill, the undersigned organizations write to express
strong support for the DRIVE-Safe Act (S.569), and to urge its
inclusion in the forthcoming title. This strongly bipartisan
legislation, which is currently cosponsored by more than one third of
the Senate, will provide the opportunity for young Americans to become
truck drivers, giving them access to good paying jobs in an industry
that needs them, while ensuring and promoting safety.
Though 48 states currently allow individuals to obtain a commercial
driver's license at 18, they are prohibited from driving in interstate
commerce, crossing state lines, until they are 21. The DRIVE-Safe Act
would change this through a two-step apprenticeship program that
creates a path for these drivers to enter the industry. As the name
implies, however, the legislation's first priority is safety. In order
to qualify, candidates must complete at least 400 hours of additional
training, more than what is required for any other CDL holder in the
Nation.
Seventy percent of the Nation's freight is carried by commercial
trucks, yet as our economy strengthens, motor carriers are having
difficulty finding the drivers they need to handle growing capacity.
According to a recent estimate, the Nation needs an additional 60,800
truck drivers immediately, a shortage that is expected to grow to more
than 160,000 by 2028. In fact, when anticipated driver retirement
numbers are combined with the expected growth in capacity, over the
next decade, the trucking industry will need to hire roughly 1.1
million new drivers, or an average of nearly 110,000 per year.\1\ As a
result of the driver shortage, companies in supply chains across the
economy are facing higher transportation costs leading to increased
prices for consumers on everything from electronics to food.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Truck Driver Shortage Analysis 2019, American Trucking
Associations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trucks used in the program established by the DRIVE-Safe Act would
be required to be outfitted with the latest safety technology including
active braking collision mitigation systems, forward-facing event
recording cameras, speed limiters set at 65 miles per hour or less and
automatic or automatic manual transmissions. Drivers training within
the program will be accompanied by an experienced driver throughout the
process.
The DRIVE-Safe Act will help our Nation's freight continue to move
while preserving and enhancing the safety of our highway system. It
will help fill desperately needed jobs and provide younger Americans
with the opportunity to enter a profession where they can earn an
average of $53,000 a year with full benefits.
Thank you for your attention and thoughtful consideration of this
important and timely legislation. We look forward to working with you
to include the DRIVE-Safe Act in the Senate Commerce Committee's
forthcoming safety title to accompany a surface transportation
reauthorization package.
Sincerely,
Agricultural Retailers Association
American Apparel & Footwear Association
American Bakers Association
American Beverage Association
American Chemistry Council
American Coatings Association
American Forest and Paper Association
American Foundry Society
American Frozen Food Institute
American Supply Association
American Trucking Associations
Associated Grocers of New England
Associated Equipment Distributors
Arizona Beverage Association
Auto Care Association
Beverage Association of Tennessee
Brick Industry Association
Commercial Vehicle Training Association
Consumer Brands Association
Convenience Distribution Association
Florida Beverage Association
FMI
Foodservice Equipment Distributors Association
Forest Resources Association
Georgia Beverage Associaton
HDDA: Heavy Duty
Heating, Air-Conditioning, & Refrigeration Distributors International
Hoosier Beverage Association
Intermodal Association of North America
International Association of Plastics Distribution
International Bottled Water Association
International Dairy Foods Association
International Foodservice Distributors Association
International Warehouse Logistics Association
Kansas Beverage Association
Maine Beverage Association
Michigan Soft Drink Association
Minnesota Beverage Association
National Association of Chemical Distributors
National Association of Electrical Distributors
National Association of Manufacturers
National Association of Truckstop Operators
National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors
National Automatic Merchandising Association
National Beer Wholesalers Association
National Council of Chain Restaurants
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
National Franchisee Association
National Grain and Feed Association
National Grocers Association
National Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association
National Milk Producers Federation
National Oilseed Processors Association
National Potato Council
National Private Truck Council
National Propane Gas Association
National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
National Restaurant Association
National Retail Federation
National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association
National Waste and Recycling Association
New England Fuel Institute
New Hampshire Beverage Association
New Hampshire Grocers Association
North Carolina Beverage Association
Ohio Beverage Association
Pet Industry Distributors Association
Petroleum Marketers Association of America
Plumbing Manufacturers International
Portland Cement Association
Power Transmission Distributors Association
Printing Industries of America
Retail Industry Leaders Association
Service Station Dealers of America and Allied Trades
SNAC International
Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association
Textile Care Allied Trade Associations
The Fertilizer Institute
Tire Industry Association
Truck Renting and Leasing Association
Virginia Beverage Association
Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America
Wisconsin Beverage Association
World Millwork Alliance
UPS
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Senator Young. Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Young. Senator Capito.
STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Capito. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank the
Ranking Member, and thank the panel. I am going to start with
you, Mr. Spear, because you mentioned something in your
response to Senator Young's question on training and different
aspects of the technology that is available for the newer
driver or the untrained driver.
I was approached a couple probably six, eight months ago
from a couple who lost their son who was rear-ended by a truck
traveling in excessive speed on interstate. And one of the
proposals that they have put forward to honor their son's life
is to have a Governor on your semi that won't let you exceed
the legal speed limit. What is your position on that?
Mr. Spear. We actually just revisited this position partly
because my staff, our members, and I felt that the eleven-year-
old policy that we had was outdated. It was 65 governed, but it
was not just trucks but cars. So what happens is, if you govern
trucks at 65 and you don't include cars, states like Texas and
South Dakota, where speeds exceed 80 miles an hour for cars,
you can drive legally which means you could probably do a
little faster and not get pulled over. There is a big
differential between what that truck is going and what the car
is going.
And if people are speeding and they are texting, that is a
recipe for an accident, possibly a fatality. So the
differential is a big concern of ours. We believe that
technology has a role to play. So we looked at the policy. We
upgraded it just last year. It is still 65 for trucks, but up
to 70, if you have certain technologies within that equipment.
Senator Capito. But let me just ask you that though, but
that is not on trucks as we have now is a requirement or an
option or anything? Just in the training?
Mr. Spear. Yes. A lot of our fleets govern at various
speeds, some 65--some lower than that. Some 67 some at 70, but
we have plenty of fleets in our membership that govern. We do,
and they train to that.
Senator Capito. Yes, I didn't mean to interrupt. I just
wanted to make a clarification on that. Does anybody else have
a comment on that?
Ms. King. I do.
Senator Capito. Yes, go ahead.
Ms. King. I don't think that the differential is that big
an issue. We already have differential lines. Our freeways,
there is no freeway out there that everybody is going 65 or
everyone is going 70, and most of us are driving 80, and many
trucks are speed limited to 65. And, we don't see that that has
been a real issue. In Ontario, they mandated speed limiters,
and they did a study recently that showed they had a 73 percent
reduction in speed related truck crashes.
Senator Capito. Thank you. Thank you. I----
Mr. Pugh. Excuse me.
Senator Capito. Yes?
Mr. Pugh. I need to follow up as well. As someone who
actually drove a truck, speed limiters are not a good thing
from the driver's perspective. Due to the fact that there has
been many occasions that someone driving up the highway, and I
am sure you have all realized in your car that once in a while
I need the ability to get myself out of harm's way. Whether
that is speeding up momentarily or whatever to get away from
something to be safer for myself and the people around me.
If I am governed, I don't have that control. I have heard
over and over here about training fees, 18 to 20 year old. We
need training for no matter what your age is and proper
training, and I hear about technology. All these things are
wonderful things and they have their place but nothing can
replace a trained driver. And a trained driver knows how to
control the truck, knows how to operate. They don't want their
trucks to be limited because they want to run down the highway
at 100 miles an hour. They don't want their truscks to be
limited because they want to have the control of their vehicle
and be in complete control of their vehicle.
Senator Capito. Thank you. Well that brings me to another
question that I have which is the AV capabilities of truck.
Now, I see a great future here in a lot of different
circumstances, but the circumstance I describe, a crowded
interstate, at night or in bad weather is hard for me to
imagine a large. Some of these interstates have a very high
percentage of trucks, particularly at night when a lot of
drivers are driving, understandably. How do you see the AV
technology with trucks and heavier weight vehicles, Mr. Spear?
Mr. Spear. Promising. We really applaud the Secretary of
Transportation for her 4.0 guidance in the space. It is much
needed. It needs to include not just cars but trucks and all
cars. All 25 auto manufacturers agreed to put automated
emergency breaking as standard on every vehicle come 2022.
So in two years we are going to have AEB on all cars being
produced. You still have speeding. You still have texting. You
still have distracted driving. Two-thirds of the accidents that
involve our trucks are caused by passenger vehicles, and it is
usually distracted driving as the root cause. We would love the
5.9, 7 channels preserved for safety.
If you are connecting the cars, the trucks, and the
infrastructure, it matters that that driver and the passenger
vehicle is texting and not paying attention, but the
technology, being able to talk to the truck, see it coming, and
apply that AEB is going to save lives. That will take a
dramatic reduction in the 40,000 fatalities every year on our
highways and prevent those accidents from happening.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Capito. Senator Thune.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Chairman Fischer, and thanks for
having this hearing. These are subjects that are very important
to rural states like South Dakota. And several panelists have
mentioned the potential benefits of new technologies to truck
safety. The efficiency of motor carrier inspections can improve
quality of life for drivers. Sergeant Samis, could you provide
some examples of how new technologies can help improve the
inspection process for both drivers and the law enforcement
community?
Mr. Samis. Yes, sir. It is important to remember that we
are tasked with enforcing the regulations and ensuring
compliance by the motor carrier industry, but there will never
be enough resources for law enforcement to touch all the people
out there on the roadway. There are a vast number of trucks and
trucking companies out there.
One of the things that we are looking to do is introduce
the universal electronic identifier, which would help us
identify trucks and focus our resources on the bad actors.
Senator Thune. Mr. Spear, you mentioned in your testimony
the importance of technology such as automatic emergency
braking and lane keep assist to improving truck safety. What
can Congress do to incentivize the adoption of these
technologies in the trucking fleet?
Mr. Spear. Be tech neutral. Let innovation thrive. It is so
far ahead of anything we are doing in the Government and it is
a good thing if it is channeled toward safety, if it is
channeled toward things that eliminate congestion. There is so
much in combination with infrastructure and safety policy that
technology can solve. We don't want to restrain it but you do
need to keep pace with it and make certain that it doesn't
cause a ripple effect.
Right now, you have a lot of localities from Uber in
Pittsburgh doing testing grounds to states like Michigan, you
know, California, and Nevada. You have a lot of pockets of
technology being developed. But in the end it is going to be
going over state lines, cars and trucks. We are governed by
interstate commerce rules. I don't need a patchwork of 50
different regimes governing what technology you should comply
with and what you shouldn't.
So having a seamless standard is really, really important,
so that if there is anything that I would recommend to this
committee is maintaining that seamless one standard fabric and
not creating a whole patchwork because that is really going to
cause a lot of disruption to the economy, certainly to our
industry if that happens.
Senator Thune. Mr. Parnell, together with former Senator
Nelson, I had sent a letter to FMCSA urging the agency to
thoroughly consider a 2018 petition submitted by livestock
haulers requesting modification to certain hours of service
regulations.
In response, FMCSA provided official notice and requested
public comments on the petition in February 2019. You mentioned
in your testimony that FMCSA has not taken any further action
on this petition. In conversations with the agency, has FMCSA
further action is forthcoming?
Mr. Parnell. Thank you for your consistent support of our
industry and of the lifestyle haulers. We did comment on that
petition 12 months ago when they released it for comment. We
also commented on the new proposed rulemaking, in particular
the adverse weather conditions. To us, some of the adverse
weather conditions are heat and humidity when it comes to
hauling livestock and having to stop on the side of the road.
So we are continuing to, you know, be involved in that
process. In conversations with the agency, they have not
indicated to us when an actual decision or ruling on our
petition might be levied but we continue to be hopeful that
they will recognize our petition and support it.
Senator Thune. Just as a follow-up on that, do you have any
additional suggestions for actions that FMCSA could take to
accommodate the specific circumstances of livestock haulers
while maintaining still very high levels of safety?
Mr. Parnell. I get it. I am a dad of three young children,
a 5-year-old and twin 4-year-olds. I would take them on these
rural roads with me. They would go out to shipments with me and
we deal with, you know, livestock haulers, Ag trucks, any kind
of trucks. I get the concern for safety but the safety of the
product that is our livelihood is really important as well. And
so I think we continue with the thoughts and that petition,
some flexibilities on our service.
Maybe the, you know, Ag exemption for the 150 miles at the
end to let these guys finish their hauls. There are options out
there. There are options that have been introduced in
legislation that I understand that we would love to work
through and find that proper solution to give our kind of
unique industry the help it needs.
Senator Thune. OK. Very quickly, Sergeant Samis, you
mentioned in your testimony the changes made to the Motor
Carrier Safety Assistance Program, or MCSAP, to reduce
administrative burdens for both FMCSA and the states and
implementing motor carrier safety enforcement. As the next
reauthorization approaches, which is upon us, what additional
flexibility can we provide states to assist in improving
commercial motor vehicle safety?
Mr. Samis. One of the challenges we face is the limited
time to spend the funds that we are granted. The biggest help
we could receive is more time to spend that money and allowing
FMCSA to redistribute unspent funds rather than return them if
the states have to give them back. Those funds were allocated
for safety programs and we would like to keep them for their
intended use.
Ms. King. Could I just piggyback on Mr. Spears comment on
technology? You asked what Congress could do in relation to
that. I think it is important that we recognize safety
technology has promise but we also need Congress to require
minimum performance standards so that we don't have several
different AEB technologies out there and we know what AEB
should be doing.
Senator Thune. Thank you. Thank you all very much.
Mr. Pugh. May I follow up on that as well?
Senator Thune. Yes.
Mr. Pugh. Thank you. I will be brief. You asked what
Congress could do for the safety of drivers? I have heard about
the safety of cattle. I have heard about the safety of the
motoring public. And I agree that is all very important. I have
heard no one talked about the safety of the driver. Truckers do
die too. Truckers know better than anyone out there, how
dangerous the highways are. I saw horrific things when I drove
a truck on the road so truckers get it, truckers want to be
safe.
What Congress can do, one thing they can do is find some
funding, some dedicated funding, support the bill that OOIDA is
working on right now in Congress, is getting ready to come out,
for places to park. That is one of the biggest crisis we have
in trucking right now is parking. Our drivers are forced to
follow rigid hours of service; they are forced to use DLDs.
Just like the cows need a safe place to be, so do our truckers.
Senator Thune. Alright, good answer. Thank you. Madam
Chair, thank you.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Thune. Thank you to the
panel members today for a very good discussion. Appreciate you
being here. The hearing record will remain open for two weeks,
and during this time Senators are asked to submitting any
questions for the record. Upon receipt, the witnesses are
requested to submit their written answers to the Committee as
soon as possible.
Again, thank you for a good hearing today. We are
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Intelligent Transportation Society of America
January 31, 2020
Hon. Deb Fischer,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Transportation and Safety,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Tammy Duckworth,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Transportation and Safety,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Fischer and Ranking Member Duckworth:
In anticipation of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Safety's
upcoming hearing entitled ``Keep on Truckin': Stakeholder Perspectives
on Trucking in America,'' the Intelligent Transportation Society of
America (ITS America) writes to emphasize how new and developing
Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) technologies that rely on dedicated
spectrum--known as the 5.9 GHz band--can dramatically reduce truck
fatalities and crashes. According to the to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 70 percent of crashes involving trucks
could be mitigated by V2X technologies.
A problem with a solution--but it is not that simple. The Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) has recently proposed giving away a
majority of that spectrum, and it has done so without any data or
analysis. The FCC is prepared to sacrifice safer roads so that
unlicensed devices can operate in the 5.9 GHz band. It is a reckless
decision that will put truck drivers, other road users, and first
responders at risk.
The Commission has made several flawed arguments to support its
proposal.
First, the Commission says that the automotive industry has not
done anything with the 5.9 GHz band since it was allocated for
transportation safety in 1999. However, while the initial allocation
occurred in 1999, it was not until 2008 that the transportation
industry and incumbent satellite technologies reached a spectrum
sharing agreement allowing V2X technologies to operate in the band
without interference. Then, in 2012, Section 6406 of the Middle Class
Tax relief and job Creation Act of 2012 required the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration to study whether
unlicensed devices could also operate in the 5.9 GHz band, increasing
regulatory uncertainty about the future of the band. Next, Congress
requested testing in 2015 regarding the operation of these unlicensed
devices to ensure they would not interfere with incumbent
transportation safety technologies, testing that has still not been
completed by the Commission to this day. Finally, in 2018, two FCC
Commissioners actually wrote a letter to Toyota, which was planning to
deploy V2X in its vehicles starting in 2021, to suggest that the FCC
could re-channelize the 5.9 GHz band, and warning Toyota to keep that
in mind ``when committing capital expenditures to DSRC technology.'' As
this timeline shows, there has been significant regulatory uncertainty
surrounding the 5.9 GHz band, and the FCC's own actions have delayed
deployment of these lifesaving technologies. Despite all of this, as of
2018 there were roughly 60 V2X deployments in more than 30 states
around the country.
Second, the Commission relied on an economic analysis claiming that
opening up the 5.9 GHz band to unlicensed devices would provide $189.9
billion in benefits but failed to adequately consider the economic
effects of retaining the 5.9 GHz band for transportation safety. While
the Commission notes that the economic analysis did not estimate the
potential loss of value from a reduction in spectrum for V2X, the
Department of Transportation has stated that there are $800 billion in
annual economic costs from the loss of life, injuries, and other
quality of life factors that result from the more than 37,000 lives
lost on our Nation's roadways each year, much of which could be averted
with lifesaving V2X technologies. That figure also does not include the
significant economic benefits of reducing traffic congestion, another
benefit of V2X technologies, which costs the Nation more than $140
billion annually according to the Department of Transportation.
Third, the Commission states that automated vehicles will make the
safety benefits of V2X technologies unnecessary. However, V2X
technologies have applications that cannot be performed by un-connected
automated vehicles, such as being able to communicate with vehicles
that are out of line-of-sight, providing road hazard warnings from
roadside infrastructure, and allowing automated vehicles to coordinate
actions rather than making decisions individually.
Additionally, both the public and private sectors have invested
hundreds of millions of dollars in developing and deploying V2X
technologies. V2X is up and running today in more than 30 states and
dozens of cities across the country. The FCC's action would completely
undermine much of this investment, discarding the significant advances
that states, localities, and private companies have made in recent
years. For example--
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 V2X 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 will 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 Vehicle-to-
Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-to-Cloud (V2C) communications allows
a follow truck to react to the lead truck safety systems,
braking, and acceleration. Using connected vehicle technology,
trucks can safely operate at closer distances to form a
platoon. This kind of connected ``cooperative'' automation
improves safety as well as fuel efficiency and emissions.
Deployment of commercial truck platooning can also increase the
efficiency of today's freight transportation without the need
for additional investment in or modifications to today's
highway infrastructure. Since 2018, a number of U.S. 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.
Currently, truck platooning systems using V2V continue to move
freight in the United States as part of customer fleet
activity, setting the stage for growing commercial use of
platooning.
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. While today's automated driving systems rely
on lidar sensors and mapping data, future ADS technologies will
rely on V2X to provide accurate information on speed, heading,
status of brake pedal, and more. In the future, V2X
communication will instantaneously alert an autonomous vehicle
about objects it cannot directly see, which is vital for safety
and facilitates better decision making by these autonomous
vehicles.
V2X technologies are not only saving lives, they are improving
operational performance of our roads--weather and pavement condition,
how signals are directing traffic, and even the location of potential
hazards at intersections and other critical road safety hotspots. V2X
applications include red light violation warnings, reduced speed zone
warnings, curve speed warnings, and spot weather impact warnings. V2X
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.
Even Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao asked the FCC to
reconsider its proposal. It ``jeopardizes the significant
transportation safety benefits that the allocation of this Band was
meant to foster,'' she wrote in a letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. The
U.S. Department of Transportation's research shows that the FCC
proposal would likely cause significant interference with V2X
technologies operating in the remaining spectrum, which could in effect
render the spectrum useless for transportation safety.
For the reasons noted above, ITS America urges the Senate Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation to use its FCC oversight
authority to direct the Commission to reconsider the approach in the
NPRM that reallocates spectrum within the 5.9 GHz band for unlicensed
use, such as Wi-Fi. It is unfathomable that we would literally give
away the best safety tool we have--and with it, our best chance to save
tens of thousands of lives every year.
Sincerely,
Shailen P. Bhatt,
President and CEO,
Intelligent Transportation Society of America.
Cc: U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Ron Thaniel, ITS America Vice President of Legislative Affairs,
rthaniel@itsa.org
______
American Property Casualty Insurance Association
February 3, 2020
Hon. Deb Fischer,
Chair
Senate Subcommittee on Transportation and Safety,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Tammy Duckworth,
Ranking Member,
Senate Subcommittee on Transportation and Safety,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chair Fischer and Ranking Member Duckworth:
The American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA)
commends the Committee for holding today's hearing entitled ``Keep on
Truckin': Stakeholder Perspectives on Trucking in America.''
APCIA represents nearly 60 percent of the U.S. property casualty
insurance and reinsurance market, with the broadest cross-section of
home, auto, and business insurers of any national trade association.
APCIA members protect families, communities, and businesses in the U.S.
and across the globe. More specifically, APCIA members write
approximately 70 percent of the commercial auto insurance coverage in
the United States, which includes commercial trucking. As such, our
members have a strong interest in today's hearing.
APCIA and the property casualty insurance industry have long
prioritized the importance of highway safety. The industry remains
actively engaged in advancing technology to make commercial and
personal vehicles safer, supporting policies to reduce distracted and
impaired driving (including cannabis-related impairment), and improving
and modernizing the Nation's infrastructure to ensure the safety of our
roads and highways.
The industry actively participates in the leading commercial and
personal auto and highway safety organizations, including The Governors
Highway Safety Association, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), and the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration's Our Roads, Our Safety partnership. Our
industry is committed to enhancing safety on the Nation's roads,
including promoting safe driving for large trucks and buses, and
reducing injuries and deaths.
Unfortunately, the frequency and economic severity of crashes
remains high. Several factors seem to be combining and magnifying their
individual impacts. Among the most disturbing is the increasing
frequency of distracted driving related to smartphone use. Other
contributing factors include a deteriorating highway infrastructure,
road congestion, and `distracted walking,' with individuals literally
walking into moving vehicles.
At the same time, costs related to crashes continue to increase.
Some increased costs--such as those associated with repairing advanced
safety technology systems on modern vehicles--help save lives and
reduce injuries.
Other factors such as medical inflation, exploiting the judicial
system, and lawsuit abuse do not serve such noble purposes. As recently
reported by the Wall Street Journal, lawsuit abuse is nearing a crisis
and is forcing some trucking operators to shut down.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.wsj.com/articles/surging-truck-insurance-rates-hit-
freight-operators-11578934834
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2019, APCIA surveyed our members on the most worrisome liability
trends. APCIA members ranked transportation liability and legal costs
as the second most worrisome sector in terms of increasing frequency
and severity among various product categories (second only to increases
in construction liability costs). Currently, APCIA is undertaking a
more comprehensive analysis, aimed at determining some of the causes
for the negative trends in this sector.
Commercial trucking operations play a vital role in the U.S.
economy by ensuring that products reach the shelves of retailers, goods
arrive at the consumer's door-step, and parts and supplies reach
manufacturers. Artificially increasing costs to trucking companies
through abusive litigation practices will not only directly impact
those companies, it will cause repercussions for the broader economy.
We urge the Committee to consider the costs of abusive litigation on
the trucking sector and look forward to working with the Committee and
truckers to address this problem.
As noted, APCIA also believes that mitigation will play a crucial
role in reversing these trends and, most importantly, save lives and
reduce injuries and damage that negatively impact consumers and
business. Consequently, we are also very supportive of the Committee's
examination of efforts to make America's roads and vehicles safer.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our views.
Sincerely,
Nathaniel F. Wienecke,
Senior Vice President.
______
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.
We thank Chairman Fischer and Ranking Member Duckworth for the
opportunity to submit this written testimony to the hearing record.
Throughout this hearing, ``Keep on Truckin': Stakeholder Perspectives
on Trucking in America,'' we encourage the Chairman, Ranking Member and
all members of the Subcommittee to think through the perspective that
all motorists, both truck drivers and everyone sharing the roads with
them, are in fact ``stakeholders''. Recent crashes including those that
seriously injured Tracy Morgan and killed James McNair on the New
Jersey Turnpike, a crash that occurred near Grand Island, Nebraska that
claimed the life of a 72-year old woman, a horrific tragedy that
injured 12 and claimed the lives of four young woman near Hamel,
Illinois in 2017, and less recent crashes including the one that took
the life of Truck Safety Coalition's president Dawn King's father, Bill
Badger, demonstrate the vulnerability of motorists and must serve as a
clarion call to Congress to advance proven safety solutions with great
urgency.
Large Truck Crash Deaths Continue to Skyrocket
Fatal truck crashes continue to occur at an alarmingly high rate.
In 2018, crashes involving large trucks killed 4,951 people--a
staggering increase of 46 percent since a low in 2009.\1\ Additionally,
148,000 people were injured in crashes involving large trucks in 2017,
the latest year for which data is available. In fatal two-vehicle
crashes between a large truck and a passenger motor vehicle, 96 percent
of the fatalities were occupants of the passenger vehicle.\2\ The cost
to society from crashes involving large trucks and buses was estimated
to be $135 billion in 2017--amounting to a ``crash tax'' of over $400
per American.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Traffic Safety Facts: Research note, 2018 Fatal Motor Vehicle
Crashes: Overview, NHTSA, Oct. 2019, DOT HS 812 826; and Traffic Safety
Facts 2017: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data, NHTSA, Sep.
2019, DOT HS 812 806. (2017 Annual Report). Statistics are from the
U.S. Department of Transportation unless otherwise noted.
\2\ 2017 Annual Report.
\3\ 2019 Pocket Guide to large Truck and Bus Statistics, FMCSA,
Jan. 2020, RRA-19-012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 safety advances 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. This deadly and
costly trend will only be reversed with proactive action taken by our
Nation's leaders.
Policies which Could Improve Truck Safety for All Road Users Today
Require automatic emergency braking in all new trucks and cars to
prevent and mitigate crashes. According to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (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), now more commonly
referred to as automatic emergency braking (AEB), on commercial motor
vehicles (CMVs) with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000
pounds or more.\4\ 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 estimated in 2012
that fleetwide adoption of advanced AEB systems in CMVs could save 166
lives per year and prevent 8,361 injuries.\5\ Furthermore, the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has recommended that AEB systems be
required on all highway vehicles.\6\ The agency granted Advocates'
petition in October of 2015 but has not undertaken any further
regulatory proceedings.\7\ 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. The Protecting Roadside First
Responders Act (S. 2700/H.R. 4871), co-sponsored by Ranking Member
Duckworth, and the Safe Roads Act (H.R. 3773) would require CMVs to be
equipped with AEB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Petition of Rulemaking: Requesting Issuance of a Rule to
Require the Use of Forward Collision Avoidance and Mitigation Systems
for Commercial Motor Vehicles, Advocates et. al., Feb. 19, 2015, NHTSA-
2015-0099-0001.
\5\ Woodroofe, J., et al., Performance Characterization and Safety
Effectiveness Estimates of Forward Collision Avoidance and Mitigation
Systems for Medium/Heavy Commercial Vehicles, Report No. UMTRI-2011-36,
UMTRI (August 2012). Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0067-0001.
\6\ NTSB, 2019-2020 Most Wanted List of Transportation Safety
Improvements.
\7\ 80 FR 62487 (Oct. 16, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation: Congress should swiftly pass S. 2700/H.R. 4871 and H.R.
3773 to require NHTSA to set a minimum performance standard and
issue a rule requiring CMVs be equipped with AEB.
Prevent or mitigate 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 (S.665/H.R.
1511). 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 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to
update the standards for rear impact guards that are installed on the
rear of trailers.\8\ 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 Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety (IIHS) in their TOUGHGUARD award and should be
applied to SUTs as well as trailers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 80 FR 78418 (Dec. 16, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IIHS has also conducted two tests of a side underride guard.
The AngelWing guard, made by Airflow Deflector Inc., succeeded in
blocking a midsize car traveling 35 miles-per-hour (MPH) from going
underneath the side of the trailer. A subsequent test showed it also
prevented underride at 40 MPH.\9\ 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.\10\ It is time for this lifesaving
equipment to finally make its way onto America's roads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ iihs.org/topics/large-trucks#truck-underride
\10\ NTSB Safety Recommendations H-10-013, H-14-002, H-14-003, H-
14-004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation: Congress should promptly pass the Stop Underrides Act
(S. 665/H.R. 1511) which will require the current Federal
standards for rear underride guards to be upgraded and the
installation of side and front guards.
Mandate speed limiters in large trucks. According to the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (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, NHTSA
and the FMCSA issued a joint NPRM to require vehicles with a GVWR of
more than 26,000 pounds to be equipped with a speed limiting
device.\11\ The safety benefits of limiting the speed of a CMV are
indisputable and the NTSB has recommended that CMVs be equipped with
the technology.\12\ The NPRM estimated that setting the device at 60
MPH has the potential to save almost 500 lives and prevent nearly
11,000 injuries annually.\13\ Setting the speed at 65 MPH could save as
many as 214 lives and prevent approximately 4,500 injuries each
year.\14\ 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.\15\ Furthermore, a 2007 survey of truck
drivers by IIHS found 64 percent of drivers were in favor of a truck
speed governor requirement.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 81 FR 61942 (Sep. 7, 2016). [SL 2016 NPRM]
\12\ NTSB Safety Recommendation H-12-020, H-12-021.
\13\ SL 2016 NPRM.
\14\ Id.
\15\ Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) and Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, FMVSS No. 140, Speed Limiting Devices,
p. 28 (NHTSA, Aug. 2016).
\16\ 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, the U.S. Department of
Transportation (U.S. 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 enact S. 2033, the Cullum Owings
Large Truck Safe Operating Speed Act of 2019, 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.
To obtain a Commercial Driver's License (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.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 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.\18\ 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 to enhance the ability of CDL applicants
to operate a truck-trailer combination vehicle safely and to avoid
crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 81 F.R. 88732 (Dec. 8, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA's inability and incessant delays in issuing a rule
establishing ELDT for novice CMV operators is simply confounding. In
1991, Congress directed the Secretary of Transportation to undertake a
rulemaking on the need to require training of all entry-level drivers
of CMVs.\19\ Although a comprehensive curriculum for ELDT was developed
and approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in the mid-
1980s, in the subsequent decades the agency has failed to respond in a
timely fashion to Congressional deadlines or issued insufficient rules
that dsid not withstand judicial review. Despite the ELDTAC concluding
its work almost five years ago, the latest iteration of the driver
training rule is delayed once again as announced by the agency on
January 29, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of
1991, Section 4007(a), Pub. L. 102-240 (1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, essential CSA data was removed from public view by
section 5223 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST)
Act.\20\ 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.
In 2017, 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.\21\ Advocates is not aware of any subsequent action on these
proposals, to the detriment of the integrity of CSA and to the danger
of the motoring public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Pub. L. 114-94 (2015).
\21\ The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine,
2017.Improving Motor Carrier Safety Measurement, Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/24818.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 March 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
automated systems of varying levels. If those incidents had involved
ACMVs, the results could have been even more 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 hours-of-service (HOS),
licensing requirements, entry level training and medical
qualifications should not be weakened. Carriers using ACMVs
should also 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.
Any Erosion of Current Truck Safety Protections Will Lead to Our
Nation's Roads Being More Dangerous and Deadly
Overweight trucks disproportionately damage America'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 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+''. \22\ 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.\23\ The U.S. 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.\24\ 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.\25\ The FHWA estimates that the investment backlog for
bridges, to address all cost-beneficial bridge needs, is $123.1
billion.\26\ 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.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 2017 Infrastructure Report Card--Bridges, American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE); 2017 Infrastructure Report Card--Roads, ASCE.
\23\ 2017 Infrastructure Report Card--Bridges (ASCE).
\24\ Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study: Bridge
Structure Comparative Analysis Technical Report, FHWA, June 2015.
\25\ Effect of Truck Weight on Bridge network Costs, NCHRP Report
495, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 2003.
\26\ 2015 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit:
Conditions and Performance, Chapter 7, p. 7-34, FHWA, 2016.
\27\ 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.\28\ 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.\29\ According to a North Carolina study by IIHS,
trucks with out-of-service violations are 362 percent more likely to be
involved in a crash.\30\ 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.\31\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 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.
\29\ Roadside Inspections, Vehicle Violations: All Trucks Roadside
Inspections, Vehicle Violations (2019--Calendar), FMCSA.
\30\ Teoh E, Carter D, Smith S and McCartt A, Crash risk factors
for interstate large trucks in North Carolina, Journal of Safety
Research (2017).
\31\ 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.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study, Federal
Highway Administration (June 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\33\ 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.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 2017 Annual Report.
\34\ Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study, Federal
Highway Administration (June 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation: Congress should oppose any increases 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 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
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.\35\
Yet, certain segments of the trucking industry continue to push for
further weakening of HOS safety regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 75 FR 82170 (Dec. 29, 2010), citing Dinges, D.F. & Maislin,
G., ``Truck Driver Fatigue Management Survey,'' May 2006. FMCSA-2004-
19608-3968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. The
U.S. DOT also estimates the annualized net benefits of adopting ELDs to
be over $1 billion.\36\ Congress, recognizing the benefits of ELDs,
mandated their use as part of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century (MAP-21) Act.\37\ 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.\38\ FMCSA reports that since
the implementation of the ELD rule, the percentage of driver
inspections with an HOS violation has decreased significantly.\39\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 80 FR 78292 (Dec. 16, 2015)
\37\ Pub. L. 112-141 (2012).
\38\ 80 FR 78292 (Dec. 16, 2015)
\39\ FMCSA, Electronic Logging Devices: Improving Safety Through
Technology, See: https://eld.fmcsa.dot.gov/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A barrage of legislative and regulatory proposals also continue to
target ELDs and HOS rules. For instance, truck drivers hauling
livestock or insects are currently exempted from having to use ELDs
pursuant to provisions tucked into the Fiscal Year 2020 Further
Consolidated Appropriations Act.\40\ Allowing certain haulers to skirt
the ELD rules jeopardizes the safety of the animals in transport, truck
drivers and everyone on the roads with them. It also complicates
enforcement efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Pub. L. 116-94 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FMCSA is preparing to issue a final rule that would dismantle
several important safeguards in the HOS regulations including the 30-
minute rest break provision.\41\ Advocates is especially concerned that
the FMCSA also eliminated enhanced driver protections for meal and rest
breaks by issuing a decision preempting California law.\42\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ 84 FR 44190 (Aug. 22, 2019).
\42\ 83 FR 67470 (Dec. 28, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, in 2016, the FMCSA published an ANPRM (Advanced
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) 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).\43\ 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.\44\ 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.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ 81 FR 12642 (Mar. 10, 2016).
\44\ Id.
\45\ 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) analysis
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.'' \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ 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).\47\ 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.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Campbell, K. L., Fatal Accident Involvement Rates By Driver
Age For Large Trucks, Accid. Anal. & Prev. Vol 23, No. 4, pp. 287-295
(1991).
\48\ 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 62 percent of respondents in
opposition, according to a 2020 public opinion poll conducted by
Engine's Caravan Survey.\49\ Furthermore, in 2001, a petition was filed
with FMCSA to lower the age at which a person could obtain a 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Engine's Caravan Survey Public Opinion Poll (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The public strongly 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.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ 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 ``DRIVE-Safe Act'' (S. 569/H.R.
1374) 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.\51\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ 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, Illinois requires a journeyman plumber to have 4
years of experience as apprentice; Oklahoma requires 4,000 verifiable
hours of on the job experience for a residential electrical journeyman;
and, barbers licensed in Nebraska must accumulate 1,800 hours of
training.
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 and
export the major problems with truck driver working conditions from a
state to the entire Nation. 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 as well as
attracting new applicants to the 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 DRIVE-Safe Act.
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.
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. In addition to ``Keep on
Truckin','' Advocates looks forward to working together with the
Subcommittee members to both preserve current safeguards and
regulations and to advance needed improvements so all road users ``Keep
on Livin'.''
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Rick Scott to
Dawn King
Background. The safety of our communities should always be our top
priority. Drunk driving is the number one cause of death on America's
roadways. Deaths that are 100 percent preventable. Senator Udall and I
have a bill--the RIDE Act (S. 2604)--that promotes the research and
development of advanced alcohol detection software and creates a path
forward to require the technology in new motor vehicles, which could
save thousands of lives every year.
Question 1. Have your associations looked at ways to incorporate
technology like this in commercial trucks?
Answer. The Truck Safety Coalition (TSC) supports the prompt
enactment of the RIDE Act (S. 2604) and greatly appreciates the
leadership of Sen. Scott (R-FL) and Sen. Udall (D-NM) in sponsoring
this legislation. It addresses a critical public health and safety
issue. Sadly, as the legislation notes, alcohol-impaired driving
fatalities represent approximately one third of all highway fatalities
in the United States each year. Operating a commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) while impaired is a serious public safety issue whether that
impairment is caused by alcohol, drugs or fatigue.
In January, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
instituted the Commercial Driver's License Drug and Alcohol
Clearinghouse (Clearinghouse). The Clearinghouse is a nationwide
repository of failed test results and has been established to help
ensure that employers provide drivers with adequate evaluation and
treatment before returning to the cab. In February, FMCSA announced the
Clearinghouse had detected and identified nearly 8,000 positive
substance abuse tests within the first weeks of operation. Advanced
alcohol detection technology that can prevent an impaired individual
from operating a CMV has the potential to eradicate the scourge of
drunk driving. Based on TSC's decades of advocating for the placement
of safety equipment such as automatic emergency braking (AEB) into CMVs
the most effective avenue to incorporate this technology into trucks is
to require these systems as standard equipment in all new vehicles.
Question 2. What can we do to encourage the trucking industry to
implement life-saving measures like this?
Answer. As noted above, TSC has worked for decades to incorporate
life-saving technologies into trucks as a successful strategy to
preventing crashes and saving lives. The most effective and fastest way
to get this lifesaving technology and others like automatic emergency
braking systems, speed limiters and better rear and side underride
guards in every truck is by directing the U.S. Department of
Transportation to issue a regulation making it standard equipment on
all newly manufactured trucks. When the U.S. Department of
Transportation issues a Federal safety standard requiring safety
technologies in motor vehicles or motor carriers like airbags, rollover
prevention technology, rear underride guards, electronic logging
devices (ELDs) etc. the safety benefits are realized for every person
and the cost is significantly reduced for every company and every
independent driver.
While certain safety conscious carriers and drivers have
consistently used and promoted the adoption of these systems, many have
fought their implementation despite clear and convincing industry data
that demonstrates the effectiveness of the equipment. Opposition
remains obstinate even when it is shown that these systems also have a
substantial economic benefit. For example, despite almost 80 percent of
carriers now using some type of speed limiting technology after
reporting that they can prevent crashes and reduce operating costs, a
fringe segment of the industry has fought universal adoption of this
essential safety equipment. As such, TSC believes that a Federal
mandate requiring the use of life saving measures, such as was the case
with ELDs, remains the most effective course of action. This also
reduces the cost of the equipment which is an additional benefit to the
industry.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Dawn King
Hours of Service. In August 2019, the Department of Transportation
published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to provide additional
flexibility for commercial drivers. The proposed rule includes
proposals to allow short haul drivers to be on duty for longer periods
of time, to allow drivers two extra hours of drive time under certain
conditions, and to increase flexibility of the rest requirements.
Question 1. Do the Department of Transportation's proposed changes
to the Hours of Service Regulations improve safety? What impact do you
believe the proposed changes will have on safety for all road users?
Answer.
DOT Proposed Changes Put Industry Profits Ahead of Public Safety
No, safety will certainly not be improved by the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) proposed changes to the Hours-of-Service (HOS)
regulations. These changes are unwarranted and unwise and will be a
major safety setback for truck drivers and the general public. The
Truck Safety Coalition (TSC) strongly opposes this significant
weakening of the HOS rules especially at a time when fatal truck
crashes continue to increase unabated and driver fatigue remains a
major safety problem within the industry for both truck drivers as well
as families sharing the road with big rigs.
In 2018, 4,951 people were killed in crashes involving a large
truck--equivalent to a major airplane crash every week of the year.
Since 2009, the fatality number has increased by 46 percent.
Additionally, every year over 100,000 people on average are injured in
large truck-related crashes. Crashes involving commercial motor
vehicles (CMVs) cost society $135 billion 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.i
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\ IIHS, Large Trucks, December 2017, available at http://
www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/large-trucks/fatalityfacts/large-trucks
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has
included ``driver fatigue on its Most Wanted List of Transportation
Safety Improvement for 2019-2020 and has included this critical safety
issue on its list since 2016. No other mode of transportation has
experienced such a substantial growth in fatalities. Yet, instead of
proposing strategies to address this major public health problem, the
DOT is poised to substantially weaken HOS rules which will likely
result in even more crashes, deaths and injuries.
HOS rules are intended to prevent carriers from requiring drivers
to operate over long duty periods which can cause fatigue and raise the
risk of crashes. However, over the past decades, segments of the motor
carrier industry have relentlessly pushed for a rollback in the rules
or exemptions for special carriers in the name of ``flexibility'' or
``efficiency.'' These attacks grew tremendously after the electronic
logging device (ELD) rule, which took effect in December 2017 for most
drivers. The regulation replaced paper logbooks--often referred to as
``comic books'' in the industry because they are falsified so
frequently--with accurate electronic recorders. The striking and candid
acknowledgment by the FMCSA that the introduction of ELDs, which did
not change the HOS rules, is a main impetus for this rulemaking is
revealing in the true intention of the proposal to degrade safety.
Groundless claims, inaccurate conclusions from research and
erroneous analysis of data are the basis for the proposed changes by
the Federal Motor Carrier Administration (FMCSA). In fact, several
assertions by the agency in the NPRM directly contradict earlier FMCSA
findings.
Driver Fatigue is a Known Safety Problem in the Industry and Ignored by
the DOT
Driver fatigue is a well-known commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
safety problem. Studies show that driver fatigue is a factor in up to
as many as 13 percent of truck crashes. As previously stated, the NTSB
has repeatedly cited fatigue as a major contributor to truck crashes
and included reducing fatigue related crashes on its 2019/2020 Most
Wanted List of Transportation Safety Improvements.
Under the current HOS rules truck drivers can drive up to 11 hours
per day (within a 14-hour window) after 10 consecutive hours off duty
for a total of 77 hours per week. These grueling hours can lead to
cumulative fatigue and devastating safety consequences. In fact, in a
2006 driver survey prepared for 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.
Additionally, research by the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety (IIHS) has found that truck drivers behind the wheel for more
than eight hours are twice as likely to crash. Truckers' long work
hours cause sleep deprivation, disruption of normal sleep/rest cycles
and fatigue.
HOS Changes Proposed by FMCSA will Jeopardize the Safety of Drivers and
the Public
The FMCSA proposes a change to the HOS exemption for adverse
driving conditions specified in 49 CFR 395.1(b)(1). The present
exemption allows drivers two additional hours of driving time when
encountering adverse driving conditions. The proposal would extend the
driving window from 14 hours to 16 hours when faced with such
conditions. The FMCSA acknowledges that the Agency has no data or
research on the impact of the current adverse driving condition rule on
crash risk or how often it is used by drivers. Nonetheless, the Agency
is proposing to extend the driving window so that additional driving
can occur later in the duty period (something already associated with
increases in crash risk) in response to adverse driving conditions
(including snow, sleet, fog and ice, conditions which also increase
crash risk). FMCSA's view of the limitation on the driving window as a
``penalty'' as opposed to an acknowledgement of the dangers of driving
later in the duty day and the need for the present limits as
established by previous rulemakings is deeply misguided and should in
no way be used as justification for this dangerous and needless
revision to the current regulation.
Inadequate 30-Minute Break is Under Relentless Attack
FMCSA proposes to tie the rest break requirement specified in 49
CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii) only to hours driving as opposed to the current
requirement which is associated with total time on-duty. The Agency
also proposes that the 30-minute rest break can be taken during on-duty
not-driving (working) time as opposed to the current rest break
requirement which dictates that the break must be taken using an off-
duty or sleeper berth period. These revisions will fail to combat acute
fatigue and will likely force drivers to work entire duty-periods
without a break.
Back Door Attempts to Extend Driving Time Which Will Increase Fatigue
and Crashes
The NPRM proposes to allow drivers to extend their 14-hour driving
window (specified by 49 CFR 395.3(a)(2)) by using a single off-duty
break period, ranging from 30 minutes to 3 hours. The proposal will
result in an extension of the driving window and hence driving later in
the duty period which is associated with an increased risk of fatigue
and crashes. With no evidence to support claims that the provision will
not be abused to address operational inefficiencies from traffic or
detention time, as opposed to being used to address fatigue itself,
there is no valid justification for the proposal.
Question 2. How do you believe hours of service regulations can be
improved to ensure that our roads are safe for the travelling public?
Answer. As stated in my testimony, truck driver fatigue is a well-
known and well-researched commercial motor vehicle (CMV) safety
problem. Studies show that driver fatigue is a factor in up to as many
as 13 percent of truck crashes.
There are several actions that the FMCSA can take to improve hours
of service (HOS) regulations. One important step is to require that ALL
drivers subject to HOS regulations use an electronic logging device or
ELD.
Unless Congress rejects persistent and dangerous efforts by special
trucking interests to secure exemptions and exclusions from HOS rules
in Federal legislation and at DOT, truck driver fatigue will never be
seriously or successfully addressed. Under the current HOS rules truck
drivers can drive up to 11 hours per day (within a 14-hour window)
after 10 consecutive hours off duty for a total of 77 hours per week.
This is nearly double the 40-hour work week of most Americans. These
grueling hours can lead to cumulative fatigue and devastating safety
consequences. In fact, in a 2006 driver survey prepared for 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.
One approach to addressing truck driver fatigue is to change the
compensation system for truck drivers. Currently, truck drivers are
paid by the mile and not by the hour. Furthermore, the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), enacted in 1938, provides an exception for
employees of the motor carrier industry. As a result of this drivers do
not get paid overtime for working more than 8 hours a day or 40 hours a
week. This is further exacerbated by the fact that truck drivers, for
the most part, also load and unload their freight, in addition to
driving long hours. This compensation scheme has created a system where
truck drivers are encouraged to drive as far and as fast as they can in
order to meet unreasonable and unsafe delivery times.
One of the major contributions to advancing motor carrier safety
would be for Congress to repeal the FLSA exemption for the motor
carrier industry. This situation is ripe for abuse by companies to
force drivers to drive long hours and long distances with unreasonable
demands and deadlines. As a result, truck drivers are falling asleep
behind the wheel. This is exactly the scenario that resulted in my
father's death.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Duckworth to
Dawn King
Fatigue: The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has
repeatedly cited fatigue as a contributing factor in crashes involving
commercial vehicles. Drivers with less than seven hours of sleep can
face crash risks similar to alcohol-impaired driving.
Question 1. What steps should Congress consider to help reduce the
number of fatigue-related crashes?
Answer. Every day on average, 13 people are killed, and more than
400 people are injured in large truck crashes and driver fatigue is a
major contributing cause. These fatalities are equivalent to a major
airplane crash every other week of the year.
As I stated in my testimony, my family is the victim of a horrific
crash caused by a trucker who fell asleep at the wheel and killed my
father, Bill Badger on December 23, 2004--2 days before Christmas. He
was on his way to the airport to catch a plane to spend the holidays
with us.
Overall truck crash deaths and injuries, including those that are
fatigue-related, can be significantly reduced and mitigated with
commonsense Federal actions. These include a variety of strategies such
as changing the compensation system for truck drivers by removing the
exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for the motor
carrier industry, requiring lifesaving technologies on all trucks, and
strongly rejecting all attempts in Congress and at DOT to roll back
safety laws by allowing unwarranted exemptions to HOS and ELD rules.
Furthermore, Congress should oppose lowering the minimum age of 21 for
interstate commercial drivers and allowing bigger, heavier and longer
monster trucks on our streets and roads.
We urge Congress to reject all efforts to enact special interest
exemptions and rollbacks to HOS rules and the requirement for
electronic logging devices (ELDs). In addition, we support Federal
safety standards requiring trucks be equipped with effective and
affordable safety technologies that already are required on trucks in
other countries. These include:
Speed Limiter Requirement
From 2004 to 2013, 10,440 people killed in crashes
where the speed of the CMV likely contributed to the
severity of the crash (FMCSA)
More than 1,000 lives lost on average annually to
speeding CMVs.
2012: NTSB recommended equipping CMVs with the
technology.
TSC strongly supports enactment of the Cullum Owings Large Truck
Safe Operating Speed Act (S. 2033) which requires speed limiters on all
new trucks. Additionally, all trucks already equipped with speed
limiting devices but are not using the technology must activate them
and all speed limiters be set at a maximum speed limit of 65 miles per
hour.
Crash Avoidance Technology
Automatic emergency braking (AEB) can prevent and
mitigate crashes in which a large truck is the striking
vehicle.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (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.
The NHTSA estimated in 2012 that fleetwide adoption of
advanced AEB systems in CMVs could save 166 lives per year
and prevent 8,361 injuries. Furthermore, the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has recommended that AEB
systems be required on all highway vehicles.
In 2015, TSC and other safety groups filed a petition
with NHTSA to issue a rule requiring AEB on all CMVs. NHTSA
granted the petition but there has been no further
regulatory action.
TSC urges Congress to pass the Protecting Roadside First Responders
Act (S. 2700/H.R. 4871) and the Safe Roads Act of 2019 (H.R. 3773) to
require NHTSA to set a minimum performance standard and issue a rule
requiring CMVs be equipped with AEB.
Underride Crashes
In 2016, 424 of the 2,056 passenger vehicle occupants
killed in large truck crashes died when their vehicles
struck the rear of a large truck. It's not known how many
of these were underride crashes.
A 2010 analysis by the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety (IIHS) of fatal crashes involving the rear of a
truck found that 82 percent involved underride.
Technology is currently available which can
significantly increase the likelihood that individuals can
survive violent crashes during which a motor vehicle
travels under the rear or side of a truck trailer.
TSC strongly supports enactment of The Stop Underrides Act (S. 665/
H.R. 1511). This bipartisan legislation requires current Federal
standards for rear underride guards to be upgraded as well as requires
the installation of side and front guards.
Improve Training Requirements for Entry-Level Drivers
Currently there is no Federal requirement that
Commercial Driver's License (CDL) candidates receive a
minimum number of hours of behind-the-wheel instruction as
part of entry-level driver training. Adequate training
requirements are needed for CDL applicants.
In 2015 the Entry-Level Driver Training Advisory
Committee comprised of industry, law enforcement drivers
and safety groups endorsed a minimum number of hours of
behind-the-wheel training be established but this important
recommendation was stripped from the final rule issued by
FMCSA.
TSC recommends that Congress enact a legislative requirement to
include this important aspect of the rule.
Restore Public Accessibility of Safety Data
Fatal crashes occur at an alarmingly high rate with
insufficient accountability.
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 and regardless
of ``fault'' is an accurate predictor of involvement in
future truck crashes.
Some of the CSA data was removed from public view as
part of the FAST Act.
TSC supports adoption of provisions in the FY2020 House THUD bill
that would restore public access to this important data.
Truck Safety will be Seriously Jeopardized for Everyone by
Allowing Teen Truckers in Interstate Commerce.
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).
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.
The public overwhelmingly rejects lowering the minimum
age for interstate truck and bus drivers. According to a
recent 2020 public opinion poll by Engine's Caravan Survey
62 percent of respondents oppose lowering the minimum age
from 21 to 18.
In 2001, a petition was filed with FMCSA to lower the
CDL minimum age to 18 years old. The FMCSA declined the
petition 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.
So-called pro-safety provisions in the DRIVE-Safe Act,
(S. 569/H.R. 1374) are inadequate and could be detrimental.
For example, technologies such as active braking collision
mitigation systems and speed limiters, are only required
during a brief probationary period. A teen driver would
initially learn to drive in a truck fitted with this
technology but after the probationary period there is no
guarantee that the teen trucker would be operating a truck
with any of the safety technology and its benefits.
TSC strongly opposes enactment of the DRIVE-Safe Act, (S. 569/H.R.
1374) which would lower the age for an Interstate CDL from 21 to 18.
Increasing the Minimum Level of Insurance will Increase
Safety
The minimum level of insurance of $750,000 for
commercial motor carriers has not been increased in the
U.S. in 40 years. Neither has it been adjusted for
inflation or, more appropriately, for medical cost
inflation. Consequently, some families not only face the
physical and emotion hardship of losing a loved one but
also the financial devastation caused by under-insured
motor carriers.
According to the legislative intent of the Motor
Carrier Act of 1980 (Pub. L 96-296), minimum levels of
insurance were meant to serve as a barrier to entry for
unsafe carriers and to shift the burden of oversight from
the government to the private sector (i.e., the insurers).
Sadly, insurers fail to apply appropriate scrutiny because
the amounts are so abysmally low.
TSC urges Senate introduction of companion legislation and passage
of House legislation, the INSURANCE Act, H.R. 3781, which increases
this minimum to account for medical cost inflation and then index it to
that measure every five years.
Safety Technologies. Technologies like emergency braking and lane-
departure warnings can improve safety and reduce the number of crashes
on our roadway.
Question 2. What can Congress or NHTSA do to ensure drivers,
especially commercial vehicle drivers, become more familiar and
confident using these safety technologies?
Answer. Many companies already are equipping their truck fleets
with affordable and available crash avoidance technologies like
automatic emergency braking (AEB), speed limiters, and lane departure
warning that are working well by reducing certain crashes and readily
accepted by drivers. In fact, a 2007 survey of truck drivers by IIHS
found 64 percent of drivers were in favor of a truck speed governor
requirement. Requiring each of these technologies as standard equipment
in all new trucks will achieve the dual goals of providing more
familiarity to drivers and confidence in their use.
Establishing a regulatory standard for each technology ensures that
no matter the differences in each individual system it must meet
minimum performance requirements. Thus, no matter what cab a truck
driver gets into, the operator knows the system will perform as
intended. Additionally, the best and most effective way to increase
familiarity with any technology is to increase use. By requiring these
systems in all new trucks, drivers will gain even more invaluable
experience with these lifesaving and highly effective technologies.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to
Dawn King
The lack of information about national road restrictions on
smartphone-based navigation applications. In recent years, many drivers
have shifted from using standalone global position system (GPS) units
to smartphone-based navigation applications like Waze, Google Maps, or
Apple Maps. These services offer valuable directions for passenger
traffic but do not currently make information about national road
restrictions like those on height, weight, or hazardous materials
available to users.
As a result, commercial vehicle operators that rely on these
applications are often directed to enter restricted roadways, which can
cause accidents that adversely impact traffic patterns, inflict damage
to roadways and overpasses, and even result in fatalities.
As more commercial vehicle drivers use these applications, we can
expect accidents and damage to roadways to increase, unless a solution
is found.
In Connecticut, the Merritt Parkway prohibits travel by commercial
vehicles because of low overpass clearances along the road.
Unfortunately, commercial vehicles frequently travel on the parkways
and strike their bridges. In fact, oversized vehicles struck the King
Street Bridge in Greenwich, Connecticut nearly 150 times in the last
decade. In 2017, a man died after rear-ending a truck that stopped
short of the Stanwich Road Bridge in Greenwich, Connecticut. Similar
crashes are common in other areas of the country as well.
I have written to the companies that manage these applications--
asking them to help solve this issue by providing clear and timely
notification to commercial vehicle drivers about restrictions in their
route. So far, their response is inadequate, and they do not seem to
appreciate the gravity of this issue.
Question 1. As I consider a legislative response to address this
issue, I am interested to hear from you about ways we can effectively
deal with the presence of trucks on roads with posted restrictions.
Answer. There are several actions that can address the presence of
trucks on roads with posted restrictions. First, Congress should reject
any further exemptions from Federal truck size and weight limits. These
misguided loopholes have resulted in a dangerous patchwork of
regulations making it exceedingly difficult for truck drivers to
determine what routes permit certain types of configurations and loads.
Second, these incidents highlight the need for better training for new
truck drivers. Specifically, effective pre-trip planning. Establishing
the correct route is an essential part of pre-trip planning that every
truck driver should undertake before embarking. In addition, as noted
in the question, more funding for states to post signage informing
drivers of restrictions is also important. Finally, several safety
technologies can also help to ameliorate this problem. Vehicle-to-
Infrastructure (V2I) technology can provide drivers with timely
information about the roads they are travelling including any
restrictions on the weight or height of the vehicle. Also, automatic
emergency braking (AEB) which can stop a vehicle before it strikes an
object could help avoid or mitigate crashes such as the tragedy that
occurred in 2017 in Greenwich. Again, AEB should be standard equipment
on all trucks. It will not only avert crashes resulting in property
damage, but more importantly, it will save lives.
Question 2. I know that we will need companies like Apple and
Google to take the issue seriously, but is there more that we can do to
address these concerns outside of direct engagement from the tech
companies, such as increased funding to states to enhance signage and
preventative warnings?
Answer. Outside of the direct engagement with tech companies, the
countermeasures and solutions outlined above can help to address this
issue. In addition, several truck specific navigations systems that are
currently available alert drives to road restrictions such as those
related the height and weight of the vehicle.
The benefits of side underride guards. Recently, Texas A&M was
contracted by NHTSA to research the best design for a side guard. In
April 2018, they published their results and recommended an aluminum
brace system would be the most effective at stopping a car at many
different angles. The total weight (both sides) of this aluminum side
brace system was 252 pounds.
Question 3. In addition to saving lives and thereby reducing
insurance costs, would a new rule requiring these braces also
potentially create jobs by American aluminum producers and
manufacturers across America?
Answer. TSC strongly supports enactment of S. 665, the Stop
Underrides Act, and appreciate the co-sponsorship of Sen. Blumenthal
for this important truck safety bill. When the U.S. Department of
Transportation issues a Federal safety standard requiring safety
technologies in motor vehicles or motor carriers like airbags, rollover
prevention technology, rear underride guards, electronic logging
devices (ELDs) etc. the safety benefits are realized for every person,
the costs are significantly reduced for every company and every
independent driver and the technology frequently contributes to the
U.S. economy.
With America facing the prospect of a significant economic downturn
due to the Coronavirus pandemic it will be essential that we preserve
and create manufacturing jobs in the United States. In addition,
standardization of a technology also significantly lowers manufacturing
costs because of the increase in the scale of production. A Federal
standard is a win/win result for safety, motor carrier companies and
drivers and U.S. economy.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Deb Fischer to
Chris Spear
Question 1. On the issues of illegal drug use and highway safety,
could you please elaborate for the subcommittee on your concerns
regarding the industry's inability to use hair testing as a federally
accepted drug testing method?
Answer. Thank you for the question Chairman Fischer. As you know,
across the country, we are confronted by widespread drug abuse, and, in
particular, over the past few years, have seen the outbreak of an
opioid epidemic. The fact that FMCSA's newly established Drug and
Alcohol Clearinghouse registered more than 8,000 DOT drug and alcohol
violations in less than its first two months of operation confirms that
this remains an ongoing challenge to road safety.
To confront the issue of illegal drug use head on, many proactive
trucking companies have adopted hair testing as a tool to detect drug
abuse into their company policies. Despite the benefits of hair
testing, which include a longer detection window compared to
traditional urinalysis, ease of collection, and a decreased likelihood
of an adulterated sample, hair testing is not a federally-accepted
alternative drug testing method.
As you also know, the FAST Act, which was enacted in December 2015,
mandated that HHS issue technical guidelines for the adoption of hair
testing as a federally-accepted alternative drug testing method within
1 year of the bill's enactment. Unfortunately, that deadline, which was
December 4, 2016, is now well over 3 years past due! While we were
pleased that HHS recently submitted proposed guidelines for OMB review
this past summer, each day we delay taking the necessary steps to
include hair testing as a federally-accepted drug testing method, our
roads are less safe. This continued delay is extremely disturbing, and
I implore the agency to finalize these critical safety guidelines.
Question 2. As you noted in your testimony, it has been three years
since this committee, and the FAST Act, instructed HHS to issue such
rules. Can you elaborate further on the trucking industry's concerns
for this ongoing delay, and recommendations for this subcommittee on
what steps should be taken to advance this issue?
Answer. This ongoing delay undermines the potential for FMCSA's
newly-established Commercial Driver's License Drug and Alcohol
Clearinghouse to fully capture the breadth of drivers who are
prohibited from operating a CMV based on DOT drug and alcohol program
violations. Federal recognition of hair testing as an accepted
alternative drug testing method would give motor carriers the ability
to report positive hair test results to drivers' subsequent prospective
employers through FMCSA's CDL Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse. This
would be a significant step towards greater road safety, and,
unfortunately, one that our industry is unable to take until hair
testing is recognized as a federally-accepted drug testing method.
For that reason, as well as the ones raised above, ATA continues to
urge Congress and the subcommittee to increase its engagement and
oversight with HHS to provide hair testing guidelines, which will
provide trucking companies with an extremely effective safety tool.
Moreover, the guidelines should align with the Congressional directive
included in the FAST Act.
Question 3. The FAST Act required FMCSA to remove the Safety
Measurement System scores from public view due to flaws in the system.
FMCSA is currently reviewing other options for gathering and
interpreting enforcement data as part of its SMS program. What impact
would SMS scores have on your members if that information is available
publically before FMCSA is able to complete its review and update the
system?
Answer. First and foremost, thank you Chairman Fischer for your
relentless efforts to reform and improve the CSA program. As you are
likely aware, while ATA has been generally supportive of the CSA
program, ATA remains fundamentally opposed to the publication of CSA
Safety Measurement System (SMS) scores until peer-reviewed research
confirms a strong, statistically significant relationship between
individual motor carriers' scores and future crash risk. This is
because third parties, including shippers, brokers, insurers, banks,
and others, have come to rely on these scores to make safety-based
business decisions, despite identified shortcomings that undermine the
accuracy of CSA's relative scoring system. Publishing inaccurate and
misleading SMS scores does not accomplish the fundamental goal of the
program, which is to identify and ultimately predict motor carriers
that pose the greatest risk to safety. ATA firmly believes that
decisions and determinations regarding safety should be firmly rooted
in reliable, credible data, and until FMCSA can confirm with certainty
that their SMS methodology is accurate, the flawed datasets should
remain unavailable to the public.
Publicizing SMS scores prematurely would ultimately roll back your
important legislative efforts in the FAST Act to repair the flawed CSA
scoring system--a system that both the GAO and NAS found to be
inaccurate due to its reliance on incomplete and unsound data to
develop motor carrier safety scores. Your language included in the FAST
Act directed a full diagnostics and reboot of the CSA system, which
FMCSA has undertaken and continues to implement. Our hope and
expectation is that the revised scoring system is not made public until
FMCSA is able to complete its review and update the system.
Background: Drivers can be detained at shipping and receiving
facilities beyond an agreed on amount of time, known as detention time.
In 2018, the DOT Inspector General found that a 15-minute increase in
dwell time at a facility increases a driver's expected crash rate, on
average, by 6.2 percent. Additionally, less time driving means less pay
for the driver.
Question 4. What efforts are currently being taken by trucking
stakeholders to work with shippers to lower detention time?
Answer. As an initial matter, it is important to note that the
conclusions of the 2018 DOT Inspector General report were based on data
that was collected before a Congressional mandate, which required most
commercial drivers to record their limited duty hours using tamperproof
electronic devices tied to their truck's engine control module, went
into effect. Thus, the conclusions the Inspector General drew about the
impact of detention time on safety are of limited value today.
Excessive detention time could theoretically impact safety when drivers
are incentivized to make up time that they ``lost'' to detention by
working beyond the hours-of-service parameters that FMCSA has
determined are consistent with highway safety. Before the introduction
of electronic logging devices to record a driver's hours of service,
most drivers recorded their duty hours with pencil and paper and could
avoid those limits relatively easily. By contrast, today's electronic
logging devices are not easily falsified. Thus, the IG's conclusions
about the effects of detention time on safety do not consider the
technological advancements that most drivers utilize today on a daily
basis, and therefore do not represent the current operating
environment.
Absent another option, carriers typically use financial tactics to
minimize detention time at shipper facilities. Carriers do this by
charging some of the costs associated with detention time back to the
shipper in the form of fees for excessive detention. Detention charges
are a market-based mechanism that provide incentives to the shipper to
remedy such inefficiencies at customer facilities. However, in the
highly competitive trucking industry, many motor carriers do not have
the leverage to shift detention time costs to their customers. In these
instances, shippers are unmotivated to improve the efficiency of their
operations and truck drivers are powerless to seek remediation.
Question 5. Are there steps that Congress could take to address
this issue without heavy-handed mandates?
Answer. In general, ATA does not believe this market efficiency
problem can be solved by Congressional mandates. The Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration is currently seeking to collect data that
will help better quantify and understand the magnitude of the detention
time program. (See Docket FMCSA-2019-0054.) In ATA's view, if those or
similar efforts are successful in developing a clearer picture of the
problem, as well as the costs it imposes on the supply chain, they may
allow primary stakeholders--motor carriers and shippers--to more
effectively bargain for market-based mitigation solutions.
However, when the shipper is the government and/or shipper
terminals are housed within government-owned or -controlled facilities,
Congress may be in a position to directly promote efficiencies that
will benefit the entire supply chain. In the first case--the shipment
of government freight--Congress could promote efficiency by requiring
government shippers to bear some or all of the costs of detention that
they impose on carriers. In the case of secure government facilities,
Congress can ensure that uniform procedures and credentialing
requirements mitigate intake bottlenecks. In the second case--ports or
other access-controlled major facilities--additional infrastructure
investments, as well as uninform credentialing requirements, would
translate to increased capacity and less detention time for motor
carriers.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Rick Scott to
Chris Spear
Background: The safety of our communities should always be our top
priority.
Drunk driving is the number one cause of death on America's
roadways. Deaths that are 100 percent preventable. Senator Udall and I
have a bill--the RIDE Act (S. 2604)--that promotes the research and
development of advanced alcohol detection software and creates a path
forward to require the technology in new motor vehicles, which could
save thousands of lives every year.
Question 1. Mr. Spear and Ms. King, have your associations looked
at ways to incorporate technology like this in commercial trucks?
Answer. Senator Scott, first let me thank you for bringing
attention to this important issue, and for your work with Senator Udall
on the RIDE Act. Drunk driving continues to be a leading cause of
fatalities on our Nation's roads, and the trucking industry shares your
concern for this, and all other causes of road fatalities.
ATA and the trucking industry strongly support the research and
development of safety technology like advanced alcohol detection
software. In fact, many ATA members currently have trucks equipped with
alcohol detection devices, and we support those members who choose to
install this technology in efforts to improve safety.
Additionally, there are several driver impairment prevention
technology suppliers in the industry that are expanding in-cab advanced
safety features which monitor, detect, and alert drivers and
supervisors of necessary corrective actions. ATA continues to
collaborate with suppliers as well as motor carriers to determine steps
that the industry can take to better incorporate technology in
commercial trucks.
Question 2. What can we do to encourage the trucking industry to
implement life-saving measures like this?
Answer. As mentioned above, many ATA members have already begun
implementing alcohol detection devices and other in-cab advanced safety
features. Additionally, ATA is currently working with the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration on a long-term commercial vehicle
advanced safety technology program with a focus on making the trucking
industry safer. The program is called ``Tech-Celerate Now,'' and its
mission is to equip all commercial trucks with available advanced
safety technologies that have industry-recognized safety benefits, but
are not required by law. This agency and stakeholder collaboration will
both encourage and incentivize the trucking industry to implement
important, life-saving vehicle technologies, and ATA encourages Members
of Congress to support models like the Tech-Celerate Now program to
further promote innovation aimed at improving the safety of our
Nation's roads and bridges.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Chris Spear
Freight Movement. Trucks moved nearly 12 billion tons of cargo in
2018--over 60 percent of our Nation's freight. That number is expected
to increase to nearly 13.8 billion tons by 2030. But our current
infrastructure is in disrepair--the American Society of Engineers
estimate that the lack of investment in our surface transportation
system costs households and businesses nearly $147 billion a year.
Truckers are spending valuable time they could be otherwise moving
goods sitting in miles of traffic due to congestion at our Nation's
ports and blocked grade crossings. Infrastructure reforms must be a
high priority if we are going to keep our trucks moving and cut down on
freight congestion.
Question 1. Do you agree that we should lift the multimodal cap in
the INFRA program in order to address congestion at multimodal
connectors? Why or why not?
. Answer. Lifting the cap would actually reduce the amount of money
available for connector roadways, and ATA therefore opposes lifting the
cap or otherwise increasing the amount of money available for non-
highway projects under INFRA. Reducing the amount of INFRA money
available to address these deficiencies by funneling money away from
roadway projects would eliminate a key revenue source for these
critical arteries. Furthermore, grade crossing projects are eligible
under INFRA. Therefore lifting the cap would not increase the money
available for grade crossings.
While intermodal connectors are an essential part of the freight
distribution system, many are neglected and are not given the financial
attention they deserve in spite of their importance to the Nation's
economy. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), just 9
percent of freight intermodal connectors are in good or very good
condition, 19 percent are in mediocre condition, and 37 percent are in
poor condition. Furthermore, FHWA found that congestion on freight
intermodal connectors causes 1,059,238 hours of truck delay annually,
and 12,181,234 hours of automobile delay. The average speed on a
connector in poor condition is 22 percent lower than on connectors in
fair or better condition. Congestion on freight intermodal connectors
adds nearly $71 million to freight transportation costs each year. We
urge Congress to set aside adequate funding for freight intermodal
connectors to ensure that these critical arteries are given the
attention and resources they deserve.
Truck Parking. I have heard from many of my constituents in law
enforcement and the trucking community that truck parking is a huge
challenge. In my home state of Washington, 46 percent of truck drivers
say they drive fatigued as a result of insufficient parking. When truck
stops are full, or when there is inadequate parking available, trucks
often park on highway ramps or shoulders, creating a safety risk for
all road users.
Parking in unsafe areas also puts truck drivers at risk. A Federal
survey found that 90 percent of drivers have struggled to find safe
parking at night, and according to a Washington Department of
Transportation study, 59 percent of truckers reported they are
frequently concerned with safety--day or night.
This is also an issue of freight mobility. With trucks lined up for
miles waiting to get into our ports and across grade crossings, that is
time that could be otherwise spent moving goods across the country.
With freight movement expected to rise 40 percent in the next decade--
up to $26 trillion--we have to address this issue if we're going to
keep our economy moving in the right direction.
Question 2. How should we be addressing the issue of truck parking
in a transportation reauthorization bill?
Answer. Insufficient truck parking is an issue that unites the
entire trucking industry. Several prominent trucking organizations,
including the American Trucking Associations and the Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Association, all support H.R. 6104, the Truck
Parking Safety Improvement Act, and would strongly encourage the bill's
inclusion in a transportation reauthorization bill. H.R. 6104, was
recently introduced by Representatives Bost (R-IL) and Craig (D-MN),
and would dedicate existing highway funding to projects that expand
truck parking capacity. This legislation would establish a competitive
discretionary grant program and allot hundreds of millions of dollars
in existing highway safety program funding for truck parking projects
across the Nation.
While truck parking is eligible for funding under the Federal-aid
highway program, parking projects are rarely given priority due to the
lack of overall funding for other core highway programs. Absent Federal
investment in truck parking capacity expansion, shortages will become
even more severe, decreasing safety for all highway motorists.
Teen Drivers. The American Trucking Associations support the DRIVE
Act, which would allow drivers under the age of 21 operate interstate
commercial vehicles. This legislation would require teen drivers to
obtain behind the wheel training, as well as, require trucks they are
trained in to be equipped with safety technology such as automatic
emergency brakes.
Question 3. Are you concerned that teen drivers, who would be
trained on trucks with advanced safety technologies, may not be fully
prepared to drive a commercial vehicle that is not equipped with
advanced safety technology?
Answer. The American Trucking Associations is not at all concerned
about the qualifications or capabilities of these highly-trained
younger drivers. Currently, 18 to 20-year-old drivers are permitted to
drive commercial vehicles not equipped with advanced safety technology
in forty-nine states and the District of Columbia. By the nature of
this fact, forty-nine states and the District of Columbia have already
determined that 18 to 20-year-old drivers are safe and mature enough to
obtain a commercial driver's license (CDL) and drive trucks intrastate.
Curiously, this same confidence in 18 to 20-year-old drivers does not
extend to interstate commerce, though all other variables remain the
same. If anything, the DRIVE Safe Act should make lawmakers more
confident in the safety performance by 18, 19, and 20-year-old
interstate drivers relative to their similarly-aged intrastate driving
counterparts--the latter of whom are not required to have their CMVs
equipped with the DRIVE Safe Act's vehicle safety technologies, which
have the potential to prevent or significantly reduce the number and
severity of crashes.
Moreover, in current practice, our Nation's military allows 18-,
19-, and 20-year-old service members to operate heavy-duty machinery,
equipment, and vehicles. With properly-designed training--which may or
may not include the use of advanced driver assistance features--a great
many U.S. sailors operate much more complex equipment than a heavy-duty
vehicle, including $4 billion aircraft carriers.\1\ Such is the case
for a large segment of the armed forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier Month, 2018 Talking Points,
https://aircraftcar
rier.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Talking-Points-2018.pdf, at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite myriad examples of 18, 19, and 20-year-old servicemembers
with whom we entrust our national security and defense, some argue,\2\
in essence, that there is something intrinsic about 18, 19, and 20-
year-olds that somehow renders them inherently unsafe--and thus,
categorically incapable of being trained to operate CMVs safely in
interstate commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Todd Spencer, OOIDA, August 9, 2019, Docket ID FMCSA-2018-0346-
1020, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-2018-0346-1020;
Lorraine Martin, National Safety Council, June 14, 2019, Docket ID
FMCSA-2018-0346-0308, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-
2018-0346-0308; Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), May 21,
2001, Docket ID FMCSA-2000-8410-515, https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=FMCSA-2000-8410-0515; Advocates of Highway and Auto Safety,
May 21, 2001, Docket ID FMCSA-2000-8410-1466, https://
www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-2000-8410-1466.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2015, Congress correctly and soundly rejected this notion when
it passed the FAST Act, which was signed by President Obama on December
4, 2015--mandating, among other things, the Under 21 Military Pilot
Program \3\--which, as we understand it, unfortunately has not yet been
able to gather enough eligible participating drivers to generate
reportable data. However, the very premise of the Under 21 Military
Pilot is the recognition that certain 18, 19, and 20-year-olds, with
proper training, can learn how to operate commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs) safely in interstate commerce. ATA fully supports and agrees
with this premise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 83 Fed. Reg. 31633 (July 6, 2018).
Question 4. What data exists demonstrating that drivers under the
age of 21 are as safe as, or safer, than drivers 21 years old and
older, and how does that data reflect on or translate to the cross-
country or long-distance routes that the DRIVE Act would permit for
those drivers?
Answer. As I stated in my testimony, forty-nine states and the
District of Columbia already allow 18-, 19-, and 20-year-old commercial
driver's license (CDL) holders to operate CMVs in intrastate commerce.
Most of these drivers for whom comparative data is available appear to
already achieve equivalent--if not superior--levels of safety than that
of their older counterparts on critical safety measures such as crash
rates, particularly when compared to drivers aged 21, 22, 23, and 24,
with whom they are closest in age.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ These two age groups are the ones selected by the Agency for
comparison of safety performance in the Under 21 Military Pilot
Program, and ATA would recommend that FMCSA similarly design the pilot
program that is the subject of this Notice by comparing the safety
performance of 18-20 year old interstate drivers (Covered Drivers) with
that of 21-24 year old interstate drivers (Control Group).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This pattern is consistent with broader trends in Federal crash
data encompassing passenger vehicles as well as CMVs. Specifically,
according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's
(NHTSA) Traffic Safety Facts Annual Report, in each of the past six
years for which NHTSA has data--i.e., 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and
2017--male drivers in the 16-20 age range had a lower involvement rate
in fatal crashes than male drivers in the 21-24 age range.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety
Facts Annual Report, Table 62, Driver Involvement Rates per 100,000
Licensed Drivers by Age, Sex, and Crash Severity, https://
cdan.nhtsa.gov/tsftables/tsfar.htm#; see also Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey,
https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm. (showing that ninety-four percent
of truck drivers are male).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significantly, these 18-to-20-year-old drivers operating CMVs in
intrastate commerce are already achieving this baseline level of safety
without the benefit of having trained under the enhanced training and
technology standards of the DRIVE Safe Act. Thus, if Congress were to
enact the DRIVE Safe Act, lawmakers should have every expectation to
observe similar, if not better, safety performance by 18-, 19-, and 20-
year-old interstate drivers relative to their older counterparts--the
latter of whom are not required to have their CMVs equipped with the
DRIVE Safe Act's vehicle safety technologies, which have the potential
to prevent or significantly reduce the number and severity of crashes.
Table 1--Driver Involvement Rates In Fatal Crashes Per 100,000 Licensed
Drivers
By Age and Sex (2012-2017)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Male
Year Age ----------------------------------------
Drivers Involvement Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 16-20 2,962 48.53
--------------------------------------------------------
21-24 3,539 49.33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 16-20 2,767 44.23
--------------------------------------------------------
21-24 3,440 47.41
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 16-20 2,697 45.28
--------------------------------------------------------
21-24 3,510 48.31
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 16-20 2,944 49.28
--------------------------------------------------------
21-24 3,723 51.22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 16-20 3,090 50.72
--------------------------------------------------------
21-24 3,897 53.31
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 16-20 2,993 49.02
--------------------------------------------------------
21-24 3,655 50.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
While this data does not isolate the safety performance of CMV
drivers versus that of passenger vehicle drivers, the data does
contradict the tired argument that drivers under the age of 21 as a
whole are somehow inherently less safe than drivers 21 years old and
above. This most recent NHTSA data from 2012 through 2017 also serves
to properly contextualize and allay concerns associated with older
NHTSA data.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Governors Highway Safety Association, July 11, 2019, Document
ID FMCSA-2018-0346-0379, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-
2018-0346-0379 (citing, to support most of its arguments, a GHSA
analysis of older NHTSA data, while correctly pointing out that ``many
studies have also documented that most truck crashes involving
passenger vehicles are the fault of the passenger motorist''), at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If anything, the abovementioned pattern of data established in each
of the past six years with respect to the most severe form of crashes--
i.e., those involving a fatality--suggests that 18, 19 and 20-year-old
drivers as a group may be safer than drivers aged 21, 22, 23, and 24.
Further supporting this impression in the CMV context (in light of the
abovementioned NHTSA data concerning male drivers) is that ninety-four
percent of truck drivers are male.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Force Statistics from the
Current Population Survey, https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm.
Question 5. Your testimony points to a driver shortage in the
trucking industry. How many new drivers, who would not have otherwise
entered the industry, do you estimate will enter the industry because
of the DRIVE Act?
Answer. Over the past 15 years, the trucking industry has struggled
with a shortage of truck drivers. First documented in 2005, the
shortage was roughly 20,000 workers. By the end of 2018, the truck
driver shortage reached a new record high of 60,800 qualified
applicants. ATA cannot provide the exact figure for how much of the gap
DRIVE Safe covers, but one thing is certain: it prepares America's
workforce today for its need's tomorrow.
Over the next decade, the trucking industry will need to hire
roughly 1.1 million new drivers, or an average of nearly 110,000 per
year. Replacing retiring truck drivers will be by far the largest
factor, accounting for over half of new driver hires (54 percent). The
second largest factor will be industry growth, accounting for 25
percent of new driver hires. As an industry and a nation, we need to be
reaching drivers earlier in their careers--equipping them with the
skills and training necessary to safely and efficiently operate on
America's roadways. The DRIVE Safe Act begins that transition and can
help close the gap in skills and opportunity that currently challenge
our industry in the years ahead.
There are many reasons for the current driver shortage, but one of
the largest factors is the relatively high average age of the existing
workforce. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average age
of a commercial truck driver in the U.S. is 55 years old. Today, motor
carriers struggle to find enough qualified drivers, which makes the
impact of the shortage seem much worse than the numbers in this report.
Many carriers, despite being short drivers, are highly selective in
hiring drivers because they have made safety and professionalism their
highest priorities.
ATA has consistently argued that the driver shortage is one of
finding qualified drivers.\8\ In 2012 and 2015, for example, ATA
reported in its Driver Shortage Analyses that 88 percent of fleets said
they were getting enough applicants, but most were simply not
qualified.\9\ ATA reported further that ``the shortage probably feels
much worse to most trucking companies because of their hiring
standards. Because of many companies' strong focus on safety, many
otherwise eligible candidates are disqualified as a result of poor
driving history or other related factors.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ American Trucking Associations, Truck Driver Shortage Analysis
2015, https://www
.trucking.org/ATA%20Docs/News%20and%20Information/
Reports%20Trends%20and%20Statis
tics/10%206%2015%20ATAs%20Driver%20Shortage%20Report%202015.pdf, at 3;
American Trucking Associations, Truck Driver Shortage Analysis 2017,
http://progressive1.acs.play
stream.com/truckline/progressive/
ATAs%20Driver%20Shortage%20Report%202017.pdf, at 3.
\9\ Id.
\10\ ATA Truck Driver Shortage Analysis 2015, at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that most carriers find most driver candidates over the age
of 21 to be unqualified, it would not be surprising if most carriers
also found most driver candidates under the age of 21 to be unqualified
as well. For both age groups of driver candidates, driver
characteristics other than age have to be considered to identify a
subset of candidates within those age groups who can demonstrate an
ability to learn how to become safe, professional drivers through
supervised, performance-based training, and through trucks equipped
with modern-day safety technologies. For the reasons mentioned above,
ATA believes that the criteria outlined in the DRIVE Safe Act are
precisely tailored for this very purpose.
Question 6. The FAST Act of 2015 required FMCSA to conduct a pilot
program for drivers younger than 21 years of age with military
training. FMCSA is also pursuing a second pilot program for non-
military drivers under 21 years of age. Do you agree that the data
obtained through these pilot programs would be important to consider in
guiding national policy regarding interstate drivers younger than 21
years of age?
Answer. ATA agrees with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) that training provided by the military for 18,
19, and 20-year-olds serving in the seven Military Occupational
Specialty (MOS) codes \11\ identified by FMCSA for the purposes of the
Under 21 Military Pilot Program is effective in vetting, teaching, and
preparing qualified service members to operate CMVs safely in
interstate commerce as 18, 19, and 20-year-old civilians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 88M Motor Transport Operator (Army); 92F Fueler (Army); 2T1
Vehicle Operations (Air Force); 2Fo Fueler (Air Force); 3E2 Pavement
and Construction Equipment (Air Force); E.O. Equipment Operator (Navy);
and 3531 Motor Vehicle Operator (Marine Corps).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significantly, in denying the Truckload Carrier Association's (TCA)
petition for an under 21 driver pilot program in 2003, FMCSA itself
left open the possibility that certain 18, 19, and 20-year-old drivers
may be able to learn to how to operate CMVs safely in interstate
commerce--and the Agency did not limit this potentially qualified
subset of 18, 19 and 20-year-old drivers to those who received training
in the military.\12\ Specifically, the Agency correctly determined in
2003 that ``we do not believe. . .this universe of drivers are all
unfit to operate a CMV in interstate commerce.'' \13\ As the Agency
also noted in 2003, other key stakeholders agreed with this
assessment.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 68 Fed. Reg. 34467 (June 9, 2003).
\13\ Id. at 34470.
\14\ Specifically, according to the Agency, the joint statement of
the American Automobile Association, the American Association of Motor
Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
(CVSA), and the National Association of Governor's Highway Safety
Representatives stated that the challenges associated with ``younger
[CMV] drivers can be overcome by effective training, real-world driving
experience, and mentoring.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with these views, ATA believes that the enhanced
training standards of the DRIVE Safe Act can be at least as equally
effective as the training provided in the seven MOS codes referenced
above, in vetting, teaching, and preparing qualified 18, 19, and 20-
year-old non-military drivers to operate CMVs safely in interstate
commerce. Given the many similarities between the training regimen of
those seven MOS codes and the training regimen of the DRIVE Safe
Act,\15\ Congress should have a similar level of ex ante confidence in
the safety prospects of the latter as the level of ex ante confidence
Congress expressed in mandating the former.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ e.g., Training Hours (160 hours minimum for the 7 MOS versus
400 hours minimum for DRIVE Safe); both training regiments require
Performance Based Training, and Supervised Training, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Duckworth to
Chris Spear
Women in Trucking: Recent reports show low levels of women
participating in the trucking industry.
Question 1. What is your organization doing to incentivize women to
join the trucking industry? What institutional barriers, if any, exist?
Answer. The American Trucking Associations has long been a leading
advocate and champion for the promotion and advancement of female
representation in the trucking workforce. Whether as drivers,
technicians, safety directors, executives, or company owners, ATA and
our member companies are committed to promoting this important cause.
Regrettably, the fact remains that although women currently make up
47 percent of the U.S. workforce, they make up less than 7 percent of
truck drivers, and only a quarter of all transportation and warehousing
jobs in trucking. While the trucking industry has taken great strides
over the last decade in increasing the female workforce, growing the
number of women truck drivers by 68 percent since 2010, women remain
underrepresented in the industry.
ATA has worked to promote the female trucking workforce through our
image programs; America's Road Team and Trucking Moves America Forward.
Using these programs we amplify the many women professional drivers
through social media, television interviews and career fairs. We also
work closely with our member companies to promote their women drivers,
and many of those member companies have accepted the challenge to
recruit more women into the industry. For example, ATA member Prime,
Inc. has the Highway Diamonds program, whose mission is to employ and
support female drivers at Prime while recognizing and reducing
challenges women may face in the transportation industry.
ATA has also worked with Congress to address this issue,
championing the Promoting Women in Trucking Workforce Act, introduced
by Senators Moran (R-KS) and Baldwin (D-WI) in the Senate, and Rep.
Gallagher (R-WI) in the House. This important legislation will bring
greater attention to the recruitment, training, mentorship, and
outreach to women in the trucking industry. This in turn will lead to
increased female representation in trucking and greater industry
diversity, while providing another tool to help the trucking industry
confront and stem its growing driver shortage.
Question 2. What can Congress do to help increase the number of
women in the trucking industry?
Answer. We believe that an important action that House and Senate
should take is enacting the Promoting Women in Trucking Workforce Act
this Congress. Through the establishment of a Women of Trucking
Advisory Board under the leadership of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, the Promoting Women in Trucking Workforce Act marks a
significant step in legislative effort to encourage greater female
participation in the trucking workforce.
Automatic Emergency Braking. Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB)
systems provide a warning to the driver when a truck comes too close to
another vehicle from behind and automatically applies the brakes if the
driver fails to do so. The National Highway and Transportation Safety
Administration (NHTSA) estimated in 2012 that advanced AEB systems
could save 166 lives per year and prevent 8,361 injuries per year. A
2018 NHTSA study found that AEB systems have an incremental cost to the
end-user of $71 to $316. The American Trucking Association (ATA)
recently updated its policies that recognize the benefits of automatic
emergency braking.
Question 3. Does ATA support the efforts to ensure AEB technology
is installed on all new commercial vehicles?
Answer. ATA supports efforts to ensure that AEB technology is
installed on new commercial vehicles, and is currently working with the
Department of Transportation (DOT) to ensure every motor vehicle over
10,000 lbs. and fleet or owner operator has this capability. ATA is
also working with DOT to ensure that these groups also have access to
any other advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) technology that has
the potential to save lives.
As you may know, safety is the top priority for the U.S. trucking
industry. In many segments of the U.S. transportation industry,
companies are voluntarily testing and integrating critical safety
features into current fleets, and, in many cases, are achieving
compliance beyond that required by Federal regulations. As a result of
an historic agreement between DOT and the majority of the U.S.
automobile manufacturing market, AEB will be standard on virtually all
light-duty vehicles by 2022.
Motor carriers are continuing to test collision avoidance systems
(CAS), like AEB, in a variety of operating environments and real-world
situations, and a wide variety of research studies have already shown
significant safety benefits. ATA supports AEB for all new vehicles
(Class 1-8) and commends commercial motor vehicle fleets that have
chosen to equip CAS on trucks. The FAST Act (Section 5222) required a
Beyond Compliance Program that would reward motor carriers in these
areas, but that mandate has not yet been enacted. ATA encourages
Congress to support measures that would instruct the Federal government
to partner with industry to achieve voluntary compliance and improve
road safety. Recently, ATA was awarded a significant DOT contract to
begin an incentivized carrier-based program that will expedite CAS
technology adoption in trucks. ATA believes this will be a meaningful
and positive step to improve the safety of U.S. motor carriers and road
transportation, in general.
Congestion: As your written testimony highlights, highway
congestion adds nearly $75 billion to the cost of freight
transportation each year. America's Transportation Infrastructure Act
(S.2302) provides $200 million in competitive grants for States and
local governments to advance innovative, integrated, and multimodal
solutions to address congestion relief in our most congested
metropolitan areas to address roadway congestion (Section 1404).
Question 4. While this is a small step towards reducing overall
highway congestion, do you support these efforts to combat congestion?
Answer. Certain aspects of the Section 1404 program are likely to
effectively reduce congestion. For example, traffic incident
management, work zone management, and better traffic signal timing are
well-established, proven techniques for improving mobility. Some of the
other eligible activities are either untested or have been found to be
ineffective. Efforts to shift single occupant vehicle drivers to
alternative modes, for example, have largely failed to produce
measurable reductions in congestion.
Pricing of highways is largely untested in the United States
outside of HOT lanes or expressway applications where drivers have a
choice to utilize toll-free lanes. Specifically, with regard to trucks,
pricing is unlikely to shift freight to alternative modes or to off-
peak hours because these costs are not generally passed on to shippers
and receivers, who determine both mode choice and pick-up and delivery
times. ATA is adamantly opposed to the expansion of Interstate tolling
authority under Sec. 1404(d)(6). Tolling existing Interstates will
shift vehicles to less safe, less well-constructed surface streets not
intended for heavy traffic. Tolling is also an extremely inefficient
revenue source, with an average of 16 percent of total revenue going
toward collection costs; by contrast, collection costs for the fuel tax
are only around one percent.
Question 5. What additional recommendations would you make to
further reduce congestion on our roadways?
Answer. According to research conducted by the American
Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), 89 percent of trucking
congestion occurs on just 12 percent of the Interstate Highway System.
ATRI also identifies the top 100 highway freight bottlenecks on an
annual basis. Congress should focus funding on addressing those parts
of the Interstate system that cause the majority of congestion. To that
end, ATA's Build America Fund proposal would dedicate $5 billion
annually toward addressing these major freight bottlenecks.
Question 6. What role does preserving the 5.9 Ghz safety band play
in efforts to reduce roadway congestion and air pollution?
Answer. Vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2X) communications in the 5.9
GHz band provide benefits in safety, mobility, and reduced emissions.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates
that just four Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC) -based
vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) applications could avoid or mitigate nearly 89
percent of light duty vehicle crashes, which would have benefits for
all road users. While NHTSA is currently conducting research on V2V for
use in heavy vehicles, the agency estimates that 70 percent of crashes
involving trucks occur in scenarios that could be addressed by V2V
systems. Preventing these crashes will not only improve safety, but
also enhance mobility by reducing the congestion associated with
crashes and emergency response. These efficiencies would, in turn,
reduce the emissions and fuel consumption that would have otherwise
resulted because of vehicles stopped in traffic caused by the crash.
Driver-assistive truck platooning enabled by dedicated short range
communication (DSRC) technology--currently available on the 5.9 GHz
safety band--improves fuel efficiency, provides safety benefits, and
stimulates greater business efficiency in trucking. Truck platooning
systems, a V2V communication, wirelessly connect the braking and
acceleration systems between trucks to enable the trucks to travel
closer together, which improves aerodynamics and, increases fuel
economy for all vehicles involved. Truck platooning is operational in
some fleets and has been demonstrated by FHWA and the U.S. military.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
Chris Spear
Human Trafficking. Truckers are often the first line of defense
against human trafficking. Last Congress, I introduced the Combating
Human Trafficking in Commercial Vehicles Act with Senator Thune to
require the Department of Transportation to designate a human
trafficking prevention coordinator and to increase outreach and
education efforts at the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
Our legislation was signed into law in January 2018.
Question. Can you speak to ATA's efforts to educate drivers on how
to detect and help prevent human trafficking?
Answer. ATA and our member companies take our role as frontline
fighters against human trafficking very seriously. Truck drivers are
the eyes and ears of the Nation's highways, and as such, we work very
closely with our member companies to provide truck drivers with the
appropriate training and education necessary to deal with this type of
heinous crime.
ATA serves on the Board of Truckers Against Trafficking, supporting
their efforts on education, information-sharing, and amplifying
resources to fight human trafficking. Many of ATA's members are also
actively involved in the Department of Homeland Security's Blue
Campaign. Furthermore, numerous ATA members, as well as our federation
of 50 state trucking associations, have made tremendous efforts to
increase driver education and training on how to identify and prevent
human trafficking.
In recent years, the industry has made nearly 2,500 calls to the
national hotline to report possible instances of trafficking. Those
calls generated nearly 700 active cases, which, in turn, helped to
identify and rescue more than 1,240 victims.
Finally, ATA's America's Road Team Captains--a group of
professional truck drivers with impeccable driving records and a
dedication to road safety--travel the country educating the general
public on important trucking safety issues, including the realities of
human trafficking and how to report it effectively.
We are also aware of the key role Congress has played in drawing
greater attention to combatting human trafficking, and appreciate that
you have been a long-time leader in this fight. For that reason, we
were so pleased to present you with the 2020 Hero Award from our
Trucking Cares Foundation earlier this year, in recognition of
leadership to combat human trafficking. As the sponsor of S.1536, the
Combating Human Trafficking in Commercial Motor Vehicles Act, and a
champion of several other human trafficking legislative efforts, we
thank and appreciate your ongoing work, and look forward to continuing
to work closely with you and your colleagues, as well as law
enforcement, to stem the tide of human trafficking.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to
Chris Spear
The lack of information about national road restrictions on
smartphone-based navigation applications. In recent years, many drivers
have shifted from using standalone global position system (GPS) units
to smartphone-based navigation applications like Waze, Google Maps, or
Apple Maps. These services offer valuable directions for passenger
traffic but do not currently make information about national road
restrictions like those on height, weight, or hazardous materials
available to users.
As a result, commercial vehicle operators that rely on these
applications are often directed to enter restricted roadways, which can
cause accidents that adversely impact traffic patterns, inflict damage
to roadways and overpasses, and even result in fatalities. As more
commercial vehicle drivers use these applications, we can expect
accidents and damage to roadways to increase, unless a solution is
found.
In Connecticut, the Merritt Parkway prohibits travel by commercial
vehicles because of low overpass clearances along the road.
Unfortunately, commercial vehicles frequently travel on the parkways
and strike their bridges. In fact, oversized vehicles struck the King
Street Bridge in Greenwich, Connecticut nearly 150 times in the last
decade. In 2017, a man died after rear-ending a truck that stopped
short of the Stanwich Road Bridge in Greenwich, Connecticut. Similar
crashes are common in other areas of the country as well.
I have written to the companies that manage these applications--
asking them to help solve this issue by providing clear and timely
notification to commercial vehicle drivers about restrictions in their
route. So far, their response is inadequate and they do not seem to
appreciate the gravity of this issue.
Question 1. As I consider a legislative response to address this
issue, I am interested to hear from you about ways we can effectively
deal with the presence of tucks on roads with posted restrictions.
Answer. Truck drivers are tested and trained regularly to operate
the vehicle they are assigned and the route they are provided to safely
deliver freight. Not all states test truck drivers the same nor do they
have consistent signage for capable routes. Some truck drivers do
travel interstate and are sometimes forced to drive on unknown roads
due to rerouting from accidents and construction.
There are currently many truck driver routing apps and services
available to the industry. Apps and services connect directly with
electronic logging devices for those operations that require them, are
purchasable through smartphone applications, and can be fitted by the
truck OEM or another third-party solutions provider. ATA encourages
smart route planning through available technology and routine driver-
dispatcher training practices.
Question 2. I know that we will need companies like Apple and
Google to take the issue seriously, but is there more that we can do to
address these concerns outside of direct engagement from the tech
companies, such as increased funding to states to enhance signage and
preventative warnings?
Answer. Similar to government funded projects for high railroad
crossings where long wheel base trucks and automobiles would get hung
up and in danger of an oncoming train, tracking and testing states
lowered bridges and other infrastructure types that certain trucks are
forbidden to drive near and providing open source data would allow all
tech companies that can provide solutions to have a fair market. And
yes, increasing state funding to enhance signage and warnings would
help too. Also, consider that many onboard vehicle technologies are
integrating artificial intelligence to recognize these signs and
warnings so working closer with the industry on this topic is highly
recommended.
The benefits of side underride guards. Recently, Texas A&M was
contracted by NHTSA to research the best design for a side guard. In
April 2018, they published their results and recommended an aluminum
brace system would be the most effective at stopping a car at many
different angles. The total weight (both sides) of this aluminum side
brace system was 252 pounds.
Question 3. In addition to saving lives and thereby reducing
insurance costs, would a new rule requiring these braces also
potentially create jobs by American aluminum producers and
manufacturers across America?
Answer. ATA is not equipped to comment on the workforce
implications of increased side underride guard manufacturing on
aluminum producers at this time. However, I would note that the Texas
A&M study referenced in your question preamble, and the findings they
produced, were based on computer-modulated testing, not real-world
testing or even prototyped tested. The research does not consider the
unintended consequences the trucking industry has regularly discussed
with government agencies, and it does not consider the relatively small
percentage of accidents that occur on highways compared to rear-end and
front-end accidents.
While this technology may successfully stop a passenger car from
going underneath a trailer, there remains outstanding concern for how
this technology could work in real-world operations. Specifically,
there is significant confusion and concern about 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. For instance,
while a side underride guard may successfully stop a passenger car from
going underneath a trailer, the potential for that car to bounce off
the trailer and strike other vehicles is a concern that should be
researched.
I raise this with you because it brings us back to the reality,
recognized by the industry, and confirmed by government agencies, that
more research is required on this technology before Congress can
responsibly consider mandating the installation of these guards for
real world operations. As you know, in April 2019, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) published a report, as requested by Members
of Congress, reviewing the topic of underride crashes. As a result of 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 research should be conducted by DOT on this
issue. ATA agrees with GAO's findings and their recommendation that DOT
conduct additional research on side underride guards.
The shortage of safe overnight parking spots for truck drivers to
rest. We all know how important it is for truck drivers to get a good
night's sleep after a long day on the road. Driver fatigue remains a
leading factor in large truck crashes, which killed nearly 5,000
Americans last year alone. Well-rested drivers are more alert and
focused and are better able to react to changes on the road ahead of
them.
In order to get a good night's sleep, truck drivers need to be able
to conveniently locate a safe, legal place to park overnight. But this
has become an increasingly difficult task, particularly in states like
Connecticut that are located along highly trafficked interstate
corridors.
The American Transportation Research Institute's 2019 annual report
identified the lack of truck parking as a significant issue facing the
trucking industry. The report showed commercial truck drivers ranked
the lack of truck parking as one of their greatest concern, because of
the daily challenges it creates and the risks it poses on their
personal safety.
With few spaces available, drivers are often forced to park in
overcrowded lots or park illegally along shoulders, off ramps, or in
empty parking lots--spaces that are at best unconducive to a good
night's sleep and at worst pose a threat to the driver's safety. I've
also heard from many owner-operators that while conditions have been
worsening for years, the parking shortage has now reached a crisis
stage.
Question 4. This is clearly a nationwide issue--in a 2015 survey
conducted by the Federal Highway Administration, thirty-seven state
DOT's reported that they have a problem with truck parking in their
state. How has the lack of available safe, legal truck parking places
impacted your members?
Answer. Parking scarcity impacts operational efficiency and
directly relates to safety. The American Transportation Research
Institute's (ATRI) annual industry survey, Critical Issues in the
Trucking Industry, shows truck parking steadily increasing in rank
since 2012. According to the survey, truck parking began as the 8th
most important issue in 2012 and has remained in the top ten ever
since.
With regard to operational efficiency, ATRI driver respondents
reported ``giving up'' an average of 56 minutes of available drive time
per day parking rather than risking not being able to find a safe,
legal sport to park later down the road. This unused drive time reduces
a driver's productivity by 9,300 revenue-earning miles annually, which
translates to about $4,600 in lost wages annually. These productivity
losses may reduce driver wages by up to 10 percent.
With regard to safety, if available parking cannot be found within
a driver's available hours of service (HOS), they may be forced to park
in an illegal or unsafe location, or they may continue to drive while
fatigued. Unauthorized parking creates a safety hazard for truck
drivers and other motorists by exposing trucks to traffic conditions in
locations where trucks are not designed to be parked. Moreover, parking
on roadway shoulders or entrance/exit ramps is illegal in most
locations.
Beyond the operational efficiency and safety issues, the parking
shortage makes a tough job even more difficult. There is a serious
shortage of qualified truck drivers, particularly over-the-road drivers
who often sleep in their trucks. The lack of available parking is a key
issue when it comes to recruiting and retaining over-the-road truck
drivers.
Question 5. As Congress considers the best way to invest in
infrastructure improvements, what do you feel we can do legislatively
to help address this serious highway safety issue?
Answer. Insufficient truck parking is an issue that unites the
entire trucking industry. Several prominent trucking organizations,
including the American Trucking Associations and the Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Association, all support H.R. 6104, the Truck
Parking Safety Improvement Act, and would strongly encourage the bill's
inclusion in a transportation reauthorization bill. H.R. 6104, was
recently introduced by Representatives Bost (R-IL) and Craig (D-MN),
and would dedicate existing highway funding to projects that expand
truck parking capacity. This legislation would establish a competitive
discretionary grant program and allot hundreds of millions of dollars
in existing highway safety program funding for truck parking projects
across the Nation.
While truck parking is eligible for funding under the Federal-aid
highway program, parking projects are rarely given priority due to the
lack of overall funding for other core highway programs. Absent Federal
investment in truck parking capacity expansion, shortages will become
even more severe, decreasing safety for all highway motorists.
The benefits of strengthening rear underride guards. An aluminum
plate which could be retrofit on tractor trailers to strengthen rear
underride guards was recently crash tested at 38 mph. It prevented
underride and Passenger Compartment Intrusion. If this had been a real
life crash, the car occupants would have survived.
Question 6. How might the trucking industry benefit from the
installation of this device on large trucks?
Answer. The safety of our Nation's roads and bridges, and the
motoring public, is unquestionably of paramount importance. Safety
anchors the very foundation of the trucking industry, shaping its core
values and decision-making. Each year, 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
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 and progressive safety initiatives that pay high
dividends in highway safety.
ATA believes that every opportunity to add a device to a commercial
vehicle to save lives should be taken, so long as the device has been
thoroughly researched, tested, and approved for deployment either
through retrofit or on new vehicles only. Furthermore, we understand
the heartfelt concerns and passion in advocacy of the family members
who have experienced unfathomable tragedy. However, proposed
requirements for trucks to install underride guards, however well-
intentioned, are highly prescriptive mandates that are not based on
science, data, or safety benefit at this time. These proposals ignore
the potential technical issues that a blanket mandate raises, as well
as other technologies that currently exist to address these crashes,
such as automatic emergency braking, camera monitoring systems, and
adaptive turning assist. Finally, these proposals ignore the diversity
of the 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 demonstrably enhance safety, take into account real-world
operations, and weigh possible unintended consequences.
Another reality of this technology is that it places focus solely
on mitigating a crash after it has happened, as compared to focusing on
efforts--such as safety technologies that are available today--to
prevent the crash from happening in the first place. All parties should
be focused on crash avoidance that can be achieved by enhancing
vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) connectivity. 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 percent of light duty vehicle crashes. NHTSA
is currently also conducting research on V2V for heavy vehicles, and
estimates that 70 percent of crashes involving trucks occur in
scenarios that could be addressed by V2V systems.
The trucking industry's efforts to gut state laws granting rest
breaks to truck drivers and weaken Federal hours of service
regulations. Over 20 states--including Connecticut--provide workers
with mandatory meal and rest breaks. These laws have existed for nearly
a century in some states and are critical for all kinds of workers,
protecting them from workplace fatigue and related accidents, injury
and death. These laws also apply to commercial truck drivers, with some
exemptions.
There is an effort now underway to preempt--or effectively gut--
these meal and rest break laws so as to maximize the workday of truck
drivers, making them even more fatigued. We have seen this happen in
California and the process is currently underway in Washington State.
Question 7. Mr. Spear--your testimony indicates that you believe
the Federal hours of service are too stringent, and you are asking to
lessen or even eliminate these Federal regulations--while at the same
time, you are asking the FMCSA to systematically preempt each state's
meal and rest break law as applied to commercial motor carriers.
It seems to me what you are really saying is that you want no
regulation of any kind. Little to no Federal regulation, and no state
laws or regulations. How does this help or improve safety on U.S.
roads?
Answer. My testimony did not suggest in any way that ATA or the
trucking industry is seeking to eliminate the Federal regulations
governing commercial driver hours of service. Quite to the contrary,
ATA strongly supports uniform, Federal regulation of driver hours
driven by the evidence of what best promotes safety while allowing for
the efficient movement of our Nation's freight. In fact, ATA was a
leading supporter of the Congressional requirement that commercial
trucks be equipped with electronic devices that record driving time--
precisely because we believe it's crucial for all drivers to adhere to
those rules. My testimony merely spoke to a small number of ways in
which we feel the Federal rules can be improved on the margins to
provide greater flexibility without compromising highway safety or
driver welfare.
ATA has, and will continue to support, a robust hours-of-service
(HOS) framework that makes sense for both drivers and motor carriers.
This includes support for needed flexibilities that give drivers and
motor carriers the capability to calibrate HOS in way that makes sense
for their own operations. As I stated in my testimony, ATA supports
FMCSA's recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which would give drivers
and motor carriers more flexibility to adjust HOS when confronted with
variable road conditions or severe traffic congestion.
Let me be clear: this support for the NPRM does not mean ATA
opposes HOS. Quite the contrary, HOS rules exist to ensure drivers
obtain the rest they need to safely operate a CMV. Yet, much of the
emerging literature and scientific data now suggest the structure of
those restful hours can be more flexible, achieving an equivalent, if
not greater level of safety than can be achieved with the current HOS
ruleset. ATA has found supportive data, for example, showing drivers
can safely split their sleeper berth periods into 7 and 3-hour
segments, rather than the exclusive 8-and 2-hour segments proscribed by
current Federal regulation. ATA supports these proposed changes
precisely because the empirical evidence points to a positive
association between more flexible fatigue management and safety.
In effect, ATA's position is not to weaken HOS, but to make the
current rules stronger and better aligned with the needs of a 21st
Century workforce. As such, in the two decades since HOS rules were
first substantially changed, shifts in ecommerce, technology, and trade
have transformed how far and how fast trucks move. Given research and
data that shows sleep schedules can be safely adjusted--why not revise
the Federal requirements to make them better-suited to freight movement
and consumer demand? In short, ATA does not ask FMCSA to eliminate
rules because they are too stringent, but to eliminate ones that are no
longer based on strong scientific data or evidence.
With respect to your question relating to the preemption of State
meal and rest break laws for motor carriers operating interstate
commerce, I would like to make clear that ATA is not ``asking the FMCSA
to systematically preempt each state's meal and rest break law as
applied to commercial motor carriers.'' We have asked FMCSA to preempt
one state's break law--that of California. Our affiliated Washington
Trucking Association has also asked FMCSA to preempt Washington's very
similar break law, which we support.
We sought preemption of California's break rules (and support
preemption of Washington's similar rules) because they are extremely
onerous--depriving drivers and carriers alike of a considerable portion
of the daily productivity the FMCSA has determined, in its expert view
and at Congress's command, to be consistent with the demands of highway
safety and driver welfare--with no offsetting safety or welfare
benefits. Unlike the rules promulgated by FMCSA, California's break
rules were not developed with highway safety or commercial driver
welfare in mind, much less through careful study of the developing
science surrounding fatigue management and its relationship to crash
risk. Instead, they are arbitrary in nature--enacted not by
California's Department of Transportation but by its Industrial Wage
Commission, and not specific to the trucking industry, much less
commercial drivers. And as FMCSA concluded when it reviewed those
rules, their very arbitrariness undermines highway safety and driver
welfare, because by making it more likely that drivers will be forced
to take breaks when they don't need them, they will be less likely to
take them when they do need them; and against a background of a serious
shortage of truck parking, drivers will find it harder to find safe and
legal parking when they do need to rest, forcing them to choose between
driving longer while fatigued, or creating a serious safety hazard by
parking in places such as highway ramps.
In short, ATA supports a single, nationally uniform set of rules
developed by the expert agency that Congress charged with doing so--not
a cumbersome patchwork of rules cobbled together by 50 states without
so much as a thought about their effects on highway safety or the
movement of freight in interstate commerce.
The need for adequate insurance limits for trucking companies. In
1980, Congress enacted the Motor Carrier Act to set insurance minimums
for commercial truck drivers. In 1980, the insurance minimum was set at
$750,000 per accident. The intent of Congress was to increase the
minimums regularly to keep pace with inflation, according to report
language in the bill.
However, Congress has not updated this amount for almost 40 years.
In fact, the $750,000 amount, if adjusted for inflation in today's
dollars, would be over $2.4 million, a difference of about $1.65
million. That is a staggering difference.
As you may also know, commercial motor vehicle crashes cost our
country upwards of $130 billion in 2016, which American taxpayers
ultimately pay for when the costs of truck crashes exceed the minimum
insurance amount.
Question 8. Mr. Spear--you have stated in your testimony that your
organization opposes increasing trucking insurance minimums, even to
keep pace with inflation. So, what would have me tell a family that
lost a loved one in a trucking crash, and is now unable to fully
recover because they are forced to split $750,000 with all families
involved in the crash?
Answer. ATA emphatically believes that when a motor carrier acts
wrongly, and its wrongful actions harm those with whom we share the
roads, it should be held accountable and the victims made whole. That
said, for any realistic level of minimum insurance requirements, there
will always, unfortunately, be some outlier cases that fall outside
them. The challenge from a public policy perspective is to set
insurance requirements so that they will fully cover an overwhelmingly
large share of crashes, while taking into account the costs of
insurance and their impacts on the supply chain. ATA supports an
evidence-based approach to insurance requirements that will strike that
proper balance.
And the simple fact is that the best available evidence indicates
that an overwhelmingly large share of truck crashes--all but
approximately one tenth of one percent--are within the current
insurance minimums. See K. Hymel et al., Financial Responsibility
Requirements for Commercial Motor Vehicles 36 (Volpe Transportation
Center, 2013). That remaining one tenth of a percent represents a long
tail of outliers, which means steeply diminishing returns from
increased insurance levels in terms of capturing additional crashes.
It is worth bearing in mind, in this context, that there is no
federally mandated minimum insurance level for passenger cars, and no
state car insurance minimum is anywhere near as high as the Federal
commercial minimum. Thus, the hypothetical family in the question posed
would be far less likely to be able to fully recover if they were
involved in a passenger car crash--which is of course far more common
than a trucking crash. Such situations are undeniably tragic, but we
don't require passenger cars to carry millions in insurance coverage--
even though it is hardly inconceivable that they might occasionally
inflict millions in damages--because Congress and state legislatures
have implicitly made the policy judgment that doing so would increase
the costs of driving--to the point of making driving unaffordable for
many--out of proportion to any benefits.
To be sure, commercial vehicles--because they are commercial--can
fairly be expected to be held to a higher financial responsibility
standard than a private motorist, as indeed they are. But ATA does not
favor arbitrary increases that are unsupported by the data. And as
FMCSA itself has recognized, the available data do not demonstrate that
insurance increases would be net beneficial. See Financial
Responsibility for Motor Carriers, Freight Forwarders, and Brokers, 82
Fed. Reg. 25753, 25754 (June 5, 2017).
Question 9. Knowing that there has not been an increase in almost
four decades and knowing the amount in today's dollars is three times
the amount of the cap, can you honestly tell me in good faith that
$750,000 is enough to sufficiently cover a multi vehicle crash with
multiple fatalities?
Answer. The fact that the current minimum insurance level was set
in 1980 does not, in and of itself, mean that it is inadequate today.
The implication that it does rests on an unstated--and unsupported--
premise that the level was precisely right when it was set in 1980, and
ignores the tremendous strides in highway safety that have been
achieved in the intervening years, making crashes less frequent, and
less likely to result in fatalities or serious injuries when they do
occur. As explained above, those minimums are sufficient to cover all
but a fraction of a percent of truck crashes today. Arbitrarily
increasing those minimums to adjust them for inflation might mean that
some small (though unknown) addition number of outlier crashes were
certain to be covered--but to make that adjustment without knowing the
benefits it would produce, or the effect it would have on the supply
chain and American consumers, would be irresponsible. And it would
still leave many of those fraction-of-a-percent outliers uncovered,
particularly at a time when the trucking industry is seeing a trend of
eight-and nine-figure verdicts.
Indeed, if the goal were truly to be 100 percent certain that every
truck-involved crash will be within required insurance minimums, that
minimum would have to be set north of $280 million. See M. Singleton,
Historic $280,065,000 verdict delivered in wrongful death suit Madere
v. Schnitzer (Aug. 23, 2019), https://www.wrbl.com/news/local-news/280-
million-verdict-delivered-in-wrongful-death-suit-madere-v-schnitzer/.
Nobody is suggesting a mandatory minimum like that, because the costs
would self-evidently be astronomical in relation to the benefit. And
that, in turn belies the notion that the idea of arbitrarily raising
insurance minimums to track inflation is really about making certain
that every crash will be fully covered. The actual effect of such an
arbitrary increase--aside from an additional tiny fraction of a percent
of potential additional crashes covered--will be to increase the
current feeding frenzy the trial bar is enjoying at the expense of
motor carries and the supply chain, as plaintiffs' lawyers further
inflate their already-inflated claims to take advantage of a larger pot
of insurance money.
Question 10. When the damages exceed this outdated cap, do you
think it is fair for someone else, like the American taxpayer, to pick
up the tab when it is your member's driver who was solely responsible?
Answer. We believe fairness for the American taxpayer, consumer and
motoring public is achieved when our civil justice system results in
just compensation, proportionate to actual responsibility, rooted in
the facts of a particular case.
Unfortunately, in an increasing number of jurisdictions across the
U.S., these basic principles are being upended by a system of ``jackpot
justice.'' As with the hypothetical posed in the above question, we see
cases being litigated not on the facts of what actually happened in a
particular highway accident, but rather on sensationalized theories
that seek to inflame juries by putting an entire industry on trial.
This pursuit of disproportionate and arbitrary nuclear verdicts by the
plaintiffs' bar erodes fairness, perverts justice, and harms the
American taxpayer, consumer and motoring public. The costs are both
human and economic and have created an exploding crisis in commercial
insurance markets across the country, with skyrocketing rates that are
forcing motor carriers and insurance providers out of business,
disrupting the supply chain, and increasing the cost of living.
The implied presumption in your question that arbitrarily raising
current minimum insurance levels to cover an extreme minority of
outlier cases--devoid of any evidence of the benefits and costs--will
somehow bring fairness to the American taxpayer is unfounded. To the
contrary, we believe it will exacerbate the growing costs being
inflicted on society by the gross lawsuit abuse perpetrated by a trial
industry motivated by profit.
The need to implement side underride guards. In your testimony you
state that equipping 12 million trailers with side guard would be cost
prohibitive. The figure you state is in regards to the retrofitting of
existing trailers on the road. However, if the requirement was modified
to just require side guards on new trailers--as all the truck safety
organizations have signed off on--the cost would be near negligible
since the side guard would be integrated into all of the changes
included in a brand new trailer.
Question 11. Considering two truck manufactures have already filed
patents for side guards on trailers and other companies are currently
in the design phase of side guards for their trailers, would you be
willing to compromise in requiring new trucks to have side guards?
Answer. This issue still comes down to real world operations and
actual safety benefit. Side underride guards remain unproven and
untested in realistic highway scenarios at this time, and the
unintended consequences of installing this technology has yet to be
addressed. Indeed, as the GAO found, more research into this technology
is required before mandating new or existing trucks have side underride
guards.
As suggested earlier, this technology, which remains unproven,
anticipates a crash. We would be better served by investing resources
in technologies that will help reduce crash risk altogether. All
parties should be focused on crash avoidance that can be achieved by
enhancing vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) connectivity. 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 percent of light duty vehicle crashes.
NHTSA is currently also conducting research on V2V for heavy vehicles
and estimates that 70 percent of crashes involving trucks occur in
scenarios that could be addressed by V2V systems.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Baldwin to
Chris Spear
Women in Trucking. Currently, women make up only one quarter of the
trucking workforce and seven percent of all truck drivers, despite
accounting for almost half of the United States' workforce. Senator
Moran and I have introduced the Promoting Women in Trucking Workforce
Act to direct FMCSA to establish an advisory board to identify barriers
to entry for women in the trucking industry and submit a report to
Congress on the board's findings and recommendations.
Question 1. Please describe the importance of recruiting and
retaining women in the trucking industry.
Answer. First and foremost, thank you for joining Senator Moran in
introducing the Promoting Women in Trucking Workforce Act. ATA was glad
to work closely with your staffs in crafting this important
legislation, and endorsing it upon introduction. Our hope and
expectation is that the Promoting Women in Trucking Workforce Act will
be passed and signed into law this Congress.
As you know, recruiting and retaining women in the trucking
workforce is tremendously important. Regrettably, while women currently
make up 47 percent of the U.S. workforce, they make up less than 7
percent of truck drivers, and only a quarter of all transportation and
warehousing jobs in trucking. While the trucking industry has taken
great strides over the last decade in increasing the female workforce,
growing the number of women truck drivers by 68 percent since 2010,
women remain underrepresented in the industry.
Therefore, it is imperative that we devote greater attention to the
recruitment, training, mentorship, and outreach to women in the
trucking industry. This in turn will lead to increased female
representation in trucking and greater industry diversity, while
providing another tool to help the trucking industry confront and stem
its growing driver shortage.
Question 2. What more can be done to remove barriers that women
face when pursuing careers in trucking?
Answer. An important step that can be taken legislatively would be
the enactment of your bill, the Promoting Women in Trucking Workforce
Act. Through the establishment of a Women of Trucking Advisory Board
under the leadership of the FMCSA, your legislation will draw greater
focus on removing those barriers and encouraging greater female
participation in the trucking workforce.
Outside of the legislative arena, ATA will continue to promote the
female trucking workforce through our image programs: America's Road
Team and Trucking Moves America Forward. Using these programs we
amplify the many women professional drivers through social media,
television interviews and career fairs. We also work closely with our
member companies to promote their women drivers, and many of those
member companies have accepted the challenge to recruit more women into
the industry. For example, ATA member Prime, Inc. has the Highway
Diamonds program, whose mission is to employ and support female drivers
at Prime while recognizing and reducing challenges women may face in
the transportation industry.
Question 3. What more can be done to improve retention of women's
careers in trucking?
Answer. We believe the greater challenge is in encouraging women to
enter the trucking workforce, rather than improving retention. Once a
part of the industry, female trucking professionals will have the
opportunity to secure significant and competitive wage, benefits, paid
leave, retirement and insurance packages with a company. Furthermore,
they will have the chance to embrace a rewarding and fulfilling career
in an industry that literally moves the economy and delivers needed
goods to every city, town and neighborhood throughout this great
country.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
Chris Spear
Promoting Careers in the Trucking Industry. I recently introduced
the Promoting Service in Transportation Act, along with Senators
Sullivan, Rosen, Gardner, and Cortez Masto. This legislation would
promote careers in transportation including trucking, and--to a point
made by Mr. Pugh in his testimony--would encourage a broader pool of
Americans to consider transportation careers. The bill has broad
support from industry and labor groups--including some of the
organizations represented by the witnesses today.
Question. Can you share your thoughts on the value in promoting
careers in transportation such as trucking?
Answer. Your introduction of S.3303, the Promoting Service in
Transportation Act, is a prudent and timely action that will raise
national awareness of career opportunities in the transportation
sector--including truck driver jobs that pay an average salary of
$45,570, in addition to thousands of dollars in signing bonuses and
excellent benefits, such as paid leave, health insurance, and 401(k).
Despite these incentives, the truck driver shortage reached a new
record high of 60,800, at the end of 2018. To meet the Nation's freight
demand, the industry will need to hire 1.1 million new truck drivers
over the next decade--an average of 110,000 per year--to replace
retiring drivers and keep up with growth in the economy. Given that
stark reality, coupled with the fact that our industry is responsible
for delivering goods to almost 80 percent of American communities
exclusively, significant steps must be taken to stem the Nation's
growing shortage of qualified drivers.
The Promoting Service in Transportation Act is an important step
toward increasing recruitment into the trucking industry, and will
empower individuals to seek rewarding and long-lasting careers as truck
drivers, maintenance technicians, and related occupations. ATA was
thrilled to support your efforts to move the bill through the Commerce
Committee mark-up process earlier this month, and looks forward to
working closely with you to get this much-needed legislation signed
into law.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Deb Fischer to
Lewie Pugh
Question 1. The FAST Act required FMCSA to remove the Safety
Measurement System scores from public view due to flaws in the system.
FMCSA is currently in reviewing other options for gathering and
interpreting enforcement data as part of its SMS program. What impact
would SMS scores have on your members if that information is available
publically before FMCSA is able to complete its review and update the
system?
Answer. Congress must continue holding FMCSA accountable in
improving SMS methodology. One of the major shortcomings of SMS is that
it focuses on enforcement of regulations, instead of factors actually
related to safe driving. The Government Accountability Office found
that SMS scores were significantly flawed, and these scores do not
accurately reflect a carrier's safety or crash risk. The National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) review, mandated by the FAST Act, exposed and
questioned the lack of quality data, the utilization of invalid subject
matter experts, the weighted score methodology, and the lack of
transparency that is associated with CSA and SMS. In their
recommendations, NAS found, ``the current exposure data are missing
with high frequency, and data that are collected are likely of
unsatisfactory quality.'' This can be particularly harmful for small
carriers with one or two trucks. Because carriers with fewer trucks are
subject to fewer inspections, the SMS scores for our members are more
likely to be inaccurate and have a more deleterious effect on their
overall ratings than larger carriers with thousands of inspections.
If SMS data is published before FMCSA has an opportunity to fix
these demonstrated shortcomings, our members would be publicly
identified with inaccurate safety scores and classified as less safe
than they actually are. This would result in small motor carriers being
targeted for safety interventions where none may be necessary. It would
also likely result in increased insurance rates and a loss of business
among our members, as insurers and potential customers would mistakenly
view them as a risk. Additionally, publicly posting flawed SMS data
could subject small carriers to frivolous lawsuits and unsustainable
litigation fees. We are also concerned this unreliable information
could be used as the basis for developing new regulations or
legislation that would fail to address real safety problems within our
industry.
Background: Drivers can be detained at shipping and receiving
facilities beyond an agreed on amount of time, known as detention time.
In 2018, the DOT Inspector General found that a 15-minute increase in
dwell time at a facility increases a driver's expected crash rate, on
average, by 6.2 percent. Additionally, less time driving means less pay
for the driver.
Question 2. What efforts are currently being taken by trucking
stakeholders to work with shippers to lower detention time?
Answer. We encourage our members to negotiate detention time pay
into their contracts so shippers and receivers have a financial
incentive to promote efficiency during loading and unloading.
Unfortunately, because many of our members are small businesses, they
lack the negotiating leverage of larger competitors, making it
difficult to guarantee compensation during detention. This has limited
their ability to affect change across the industry. For too long,
Congress has avoided addressing the issue by counting on market
conditions to solve the problem. Unfortunately, that has resulted in
worsening conditions for truckers. Congress must now work with all
stakeholders to develop policies that will not only improve efficiency
within the supply chain, but ensure drivers are paid for all the time
they spend completing a haul.
Question 3. Are there steps that Congress could take to address
this issue without heavy-handed mandates?
Answer. One step Congress can take to improve detention time is
repealing the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime exemption for
motor carriers. Federal law appropriately requires drivers to be on-
duty while they're being detained, yet Federal law also precludes
drivers from being compensated for working extra hours. If shippers and
receivers were responsible for paying drivers for all the hours they
work during a freight movement, whether directly or through a motor
carrier, it would provide financial incentive to improve their
operations and minimize detention.
The Federal government must also collect more data on detention
time and work to make the information publicly available. OOIDA
supports providing public access to expected loading, unloading, and
delay times at individual facilities. A national database that drivers
and motor carriers could easily access would give them a better
understanding of how specific facilities and industries perform,
providing drivers an opportunity to avoid problematic locations. This
would further incentivize shippers and receivers to improve efficiency.
Additional data could also help Congress develop detention time
standards that reflect the diverse nature of the trucking industry.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Lewie Pugh
Freight Movement. Trucks moved nearly 12 billion tons of cargo in
2018--over 60 percent of our Nation's freight. That number is expected
to increase to nearly 13.8 billion tons by 2030.
But our current infrastructure is in disrepair--the American
Society of Engineers estimate that the lack of investment in our
surface transportation system costs households and businesses nearly
$147 billion a year.
Truckers are spending valuable time they could be otherwise moving
goods sitting in miles of traffic due to congestion at our Nation's
ports and blocked grade crossings.
These infrastructure reforms must be a high priority if we are
going to keep our trucks moving and cut down on freight congestion.
Question 1. Do you agree that we should lift the multimodal cap in
the INFRA program in order to address congestion at multimodal
connectors? Why or why not?
Answer. No. Truckers experience delays as a result of numerous
factors outside their control, including the rigidity of scheduling by
shippers and receivers, excessive detention time during loading and
unloading, traffic congestion, and inclement weather. Unfortunately,
truckers often experience the greatest burdens associated with rampant
inefficiencies within the supply chain and unexpected delays in moving
freight.
The state of our Nation's infrastructure certainly plays a
significant role in these delays as well, which is why OOIDA has long
supported efforts to increase Highway Trust Fund (HTF) revenues in a
fair and equitable way. The most immediate and practical way to do this
in the next highway bill is through reasonable increases to both the
gasoline and diesel fuel taxes.
At the same time, our members have concerns about the diversion of
funding from the HTF to non-highway projects, and see this as their tax
dollars being used to directly benefit other modes, including those
with which they compete. OOIDA believes revenues derived from highway
users should be exclusively devoted to projects that improve movement
on our Nation's roads.
Truck Parking. I have heard from many of my constituents in law
enforcement and the trucking community that truck parking is a huge
challenge. In my home state of Washington, 46 percent of truck drivers
say they drive fatigued as a result of insufficient parking. When truck
stops are full, or when there is inadequate parking available, trucks
often park on highway ramps or shoulders, creating a safety risk for
all road users.
Parking in unsafe areas also puts truck drivers at risk. A Federal
survey found that 90 percent of drivers have struggled to find safe
parking at night, and according to a Washington Department of
Transportation study, 59 percent of truckers reported they are
frequently concerned with safety--day or night.
This is also an issue of freight mobility. With trucks lined up for
miles waiting to get into our ports and across grade crossings, that is
time that could be otherwise spent moving goods across the country.
With freight movement expected to rise 40 percent in the next decade--
up to $26 trillion--we have to address this issue if we're going to
keep our economy moving in the right direction.
Question 2. How should we be addressing the issue of truck parking
in a transportation reauthorization bill?
Answer. Congress should set aside a portion of HTF dollars for the
exclusive purpose of expanding truck parking capacity as part of
surface transportation reauthorization legislation. Under existing
Federal highway programs, states may use funding to construct truck
parking facilities and safety rest areas. Unfortunately, within these
programs, truck parking projects are left to compete with other state
priorities. As a result, very little Federal funding has been devoted
to expanding parking capacity. OOIDA believes the lack of dedicated
Federal funding has contributed to the current truck parking crisis.
We're thrilled that bipartisan legislation has been introduced in
the U.S. House of Representatives--H.R. 6104, the Truck Parking Safety
Improvement Act--that would set-aside funding from existing highway
programs for projects that expand truck parking capacity. This solution
would help states better prioritize truck parking and improve safety
for all highway users. Through our outreach to elected officials in
both chambers, we believe there is strong bipartisan support for this
approach, and anticipate the introduction of a Senate companion to H.R.
6104 in the near future.
The bill also has broad support from stakeholders in the trucking
industry, including the American Trucking Associations, Truckload
Carriers Association, National Association of Small Trucking Companies,
and the Transportation Intermediaries Association, as well as the
National Motorists Association, which represents the motoring public.
Maintaining the status quo will only perpetuate today's crisis, if
not worsen conditions for our members and other highway users. We look
forward to working with members of this Subcommittee to develop and
advance meaningful solutions like the Truck Parking Safety Improvement
Act.
Driver Shortage. The American Trucking Associations states that
there is a massive driver shortage in the United States. Their solution
to this problem is the DRIVE Act which will allow younger and less
experienced drivers on the road.
Question 3. Do you agree with this solution?
Answer. No. To agree with a proposed solution, we must first agree
there is a problem, but the ``driver shortage'' is categorically a
myth. Extremely high rates of driver turnover among some large motor
carriers is the real problem within our industry. In a March 2019
examination of this issue, the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that
while there was ``one segment of the trucking labor market (long-
distance TL 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.''
Furthermore, FMCSA issues over 400,000 new CDLs annually. Clearly,
there is no shortage of new drivers entering the industry, but rather
an unrestrained level of churn. The DRIVE-Safe Act will do nothing to
decrease turnover and could even make matters worse by failing to
address many of the factors that contribute to it.
If large motor carriers truly want to solve the labor issues
they've created within our industry, promoting the DRIVE-Safe Act is
certainly not the solution. Instead, they should start by offering
drivers compensation that is competitive with motor carriers who don't
encounter high levels of churn, as well as other industries hoping to
attract the same workers. Large fleets should also begin to improve
working conditions as a means to maintain drivers.
OOIDA firmly opposes the DRIVE-Safe Act, not only because it's a
solution in search of a problem, but also because it will undoubtedly
decrease highway safety. The bill doubles down on the failures of the
current system by bringing younger and less experienced drivers into
our industry. Younger drivers are proven to be less safe than their
more experienced counterparts.
Question 4. Have your drivers seen an increase in wages that one
would expect to see in a labor shortage?
Answer. No. Truckers have not seen a meaningful increase in wages
in decades. To the contrary, professional drivers' compensation has
failed to keep pace with inflation since 1980, effectively slashing
truckers' wages by nearly a third. The average truck driver earned
$38,618 in 1980, which would equate to approximately $124,000 in 2018.
The lack of competitive wages at many large fleets has greatly
contributed to their high turnover rates, which in some cases are as
high as 90 to 100 percent annually.
Question 5. As a former truck driver, what do you think Congress
can do to improve working conditions and make trucking more enticing
for new drivers?
Answer. There are numerous steps Congress must take to make careers
in trucking more attractive and sustainable for new drivers. One of the
major challenges that drivers face on the road is a lack of available
truck parking. When they can't find a safe parking space, drivers are
often forced to drive past the point where they begin feeling fatigued.
Additionally, truckers are commonly placed in no-win situations where
they must decide to park in an unsafe or illegal location--such as a
vacant lot--or violate Federal hours-of-service regulations by
continuing to search for a safer and legal alternative. Providing more
parking for truckers would help alleviate one of the major frustrations
drivers experience on the job.
Another step Congress should take is eliminating the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) overtime exemption for truck drivers. Federal law
appropriately requires drivers to be on-duty while they're being
detained, yet also precludes drivers from being compensated for the
extra time they spend completing a freight movement. This exemption was
implemented in the 1930s to prevent drivers from working too many
hours, but today, it simply prevents them from receiving adequate
compensation for the work they do.
Congress must also take steps to address excessive detention time,
which has been linked to increased crash rates. Many drivers spend
countless unpaid on-duty hours being detained due to the inefficiency
of others within the supply chain. Creating a financial incentive for
shippers and receivers to improve their efficiency in loading and
unloading trucks would likely help reduce excessive detention and
ensure drivers are being appropriately paid. Another way to address
this problem is to collect more data on detention at specific shipping
and receiving facilities and work to make this information public.
OOIDA supports publicizing expected loading, unloading, and delay times
at individual facilities. A national database that drivers and motor
carriers could easily access would incentivize shippers and receivers
to improve their operations.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to
Lewie Pugh
The lack of information about national road restrictions on
smartphone-based navigation applications. In recent years, many drivers
have shifted from using standalone global position system (GPS) units
to smartphone-based navigation applications like Waze, Google Maps, or
Apple Maps. These services offer valuable directions for passenger
traffic but do not currently make information about national road
restrictions like those on height, weight, or hazardous materials
available to users.
As a result, commercial vehicle operators that rely on these
applications are often directed to enter restricted roadways, which can
cause accidents that adversely impact traffic patterns, inflict damage
to roadways and overpasses, and even result in fatalities.
As more commercial vehicle drivers use these applications, we can
expect accidents and damage to roadways to increase, unless a solution
is found.
In Connecticut, the Merritt Parkway prohibits travel by commercial
vehicles because of low overpass clearances along the road.
Unfortunately, commercial vehicles frequently travel on the parkways
and strike their bridges. In fact, oversized vehicles struck the King
Street Bridge in Greenwich, Connecticut nearly 150 times in the last
decade. In 2017, a man died after rear-ending a truck that stopped
short of the Stanwich Road Bridge in Greenwich, Connecticut. Similar
crashes are common in other areas of the country as well.
I have written to the companies that manage these applications--
asking them to help solve this issue by providing clear and timely
notification to commercial vehicle drivers about restrictions in their
route. So far, their response is inadequate and they do not seem to
appreciate the gravity of this issue.
Question 1. As I consider a legislative response to address this
issue, I am interested to hear from you about ways we can effectively
deal with the presence of tucks on roads with posted restrictions.
Answer. Better training of drivers would certainly help improve
this problem (and many others). Many new drivers are overly-reliant on
technology, inadvertently placing them in unsafe scenarios more
experienced divers would know to avoid. Improved signage would also
help reduce risks, but not if drivers are increasingly dependent on
unreliable technology to navigate the safest and most efficient route.
Navigation applications have the potential to improve safety on our
highways and within our industry, but we agree there are shortcomings
with many platforms that must be addressed. OOIDA is eager to work with
you and other members of the Subcommittee to ensure greater clarity and
uniformity in navigation technology.
Question 2. I know that we will need companies like Apple and
Google to take the issue seriously, but is there more that we can do to
address these concerns outside of direct engagement from the tech
companies, such as increased funding to states to enhance signage and
preventative warnings?
Answer. Again, improved driver training must be a part of the
solution. However, if Congress is also considering providing additional
funding to state and local governments to improve signage, they must
also require these entities to promptly update existing signs when
highways are rehabilitated. Clearances can change when new pavements
are laid, but state and local governments often fail to keep signs
accurate. Furthermore, signs must be placed in locations that give
truckers the opportunity turn around and choose a more appropriate
route. These factors also cause unnecessary hazards for our members and
the motoring public.
The shortage of safe overnight parking spots for truck drivers to
rest. We all know how important it is for truck drivers to get a good
night's sleep after a long day on the road. Driver fatigue remains a
leading factor in large truck crashes, which killed nearly 5,000
Americans last year alone. Well-rested drivers are more alert and
focused and are better able to react to changes on the road ahead of
them.
In order to get a good night's sleep, truck drivers need to be able
to conveniently locate a safe, legal place to park overnight. But this
has become an increasingly difficult task, particularly in states like
Connecticut that are located along highly trafficked interstate
corridors.
The American Transportation Research Institute's 2019 annual report
identified the lack of truck parking as a significant issue facing the
trucking industry. The report showed commercial truck drivers ranked
the lack of truck parking as one of their greatest concern, because of
the daily challenges it creates and the risks it poses on their
personal safety.
With few spaces available, drivers are often forced to park in
overcrowded lots or park illegally along shoulders, off ramps, or in
empty parking lots--spaces that are at best unconducive to a good
night's sleep and at worst pose a threat to the driver's safety. I've
also heard from many owner-operators that while conditions have been
worsening for years, the parking shortage has now reached a crisis
stage.
Question 3. This is clearly a nationwide issue--in a 2015 survey
conducted by the Federal Highway Administration, thirty-seven state
DOT's reported that they have a problem with truck parking in their
state. How has the lack of available safe, legal truck parking places
impacted your members?
Answer. A lack of truck parking has put our members in unsafe
situations and more generally, it creates operational challenges. In a
survey of our membership, nearly half of respondents said that they
``often'' or ``on a regular basis'' drove beyond feeling safe and alert
because of a lack of parking. This is a predicament no driver wants to
encounter, but entirely too many are on a daily basis. Furthermore, our
members are routinely put in no-win situations where they must decide
to park in an unsafe or illegal location--such as a vacant lot--or
violate Federal hours-of-service regulations by continuing to search
for a safer and legal alternative. This creates unneeded stress and
complications for them as they try to complete their work in a safe and
timely manner.
Question 4. As Congress considers the best way to invest in
infrastructure improvements, what do you feel we can do legislatively
to help address this serious highway safety issue?
Answer. Congress should set aside a portion of HTF dollars for the
exclusive purpose of expanding truck parking capacity as part of
surface transportation reauthorization legislation. Under existing
Federal highway programs, states may use funding to construct truck
parking facilities and safety rest areas. Unfortunately, within these
programs, truck parking projects are left to compete with other state
priorities. As a result, very little Federal funding has been devoted
to expanding parking capacity. OOIDA believes the lack of dedicated
Federal funding has contributed to the current truck parking crisis.
We're thrilled that bipartisan legislation has been introduced in
the U.S. House of Representatives--H.R. 6104, the Truck Parking Safety
Improvement Act--that would set-aside funding from existing highway
programs for projects that expand truck parking capacity. This solution
would help states better prioritize truck parking and improve safety
for all highway users. Through our outreach to elected officials in
both chambers, we believe there is strong bipartisan support for this
approach, and anticipate the introduction of a Senate companion to H.R.
6104 in the near future.
The bill also has broad support from stakeholders in the trucking
industry, including the American Trucking Associations, Truckload
Carriers Association, National Association of Small Trucking Companies,
and the Transportation Intermediaries Association, as well as the
National Motorists Association, which represents the motoring public.
Maintaining the status quo will only perpetuate today's crisis, if
not worsen conditions for our members and other highway users. We look
forward to working with members of this Subcommittee to develop and
advance meaningful solutions like the Truck Parking Safety Improvement
Act.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Baldwin to
Lewie Pugh
Women in Trucking. Currently, women make up only one quarter of the
trucking workforce and seven percent of all truck drivers, despite
accounting for almost half of the United States' workforce. Senator
Moran and I have introduced the Promoting Women in Trucking Workforce
Act to direct FMCSA to establish an advisory board to identify barriers
to entry for women in the trucking industry and submit a report to
Congress on the board's findings and recommendations.
Question 1. Please describe the importance of recruiting and
retaining women in the trucking industry.
Answer. A career in trucking can be rewarding for any driver who
works hard and operates safely. The most successful drivers are often
able to launch their own small businesses as owner-operators. But the
odds of doing either in today's industry are extraordinarily low.
Unfortunately, the many factors that prevent Americans from becoming a
driver or remaining in our industry long enough to truly succeed are
often compounded for women. Compensation is low and working conditions
are difficult--drivers are forced to comply with a dizzying list of
regulations, they often have nowhere safe to park when they are
fatigued or out of hours, they're needlessly detained for excessive
amounts of time due to rampant inefficiencies among shippers and
receivers, and other motorists routinely treat them with disdain. Women
deserve every opportunity to launch productive and enriching careers in
trucking, but recruitment and retention of women drivers will never
improve until Congress helps address many of these foundational
problems that negatively impact all drivers.
That said, FMCSA has acknowledged women drivers often face a
pattern of harassment and assault-related crimes that many of their
male counterparts will never experience. This undoubtedly hampers
recruitment and limits retention. We support the agency's plan to study
the ``prevalence, seriousness and nature of the problem of harassment
and assaults against minority and female truckers''. Completion of this
study will help Federal regulators and those within our industry
understand many of the problems women uniquely face and work together
on solutions to prevent them.
Question 2. What more can be done to remove barriers that women
face when pursuing careers in trucking?
Answer. Taking steps to thoroughly understand the challenges women
drivers face in today's industry will be extremely helpful. The
legislation you have introduced with Sen. Moran, S. 2858, is an
important first step toward identifying these challenges and
determining the steps that must be taken to improve the recruitment,
retention and advancement of women drivers. OOIDA members have already
expressed interest in participating in the board established by your
bill. We hope we can work with you to ensure our members--those who
have overcome many of the barriers that prevent other women from
achieving similar success--are active participants on this important
panel. Their experiences will not only give policymakers a better
understanding of the current hurdles women face, but also a clear idea
of what needs to be done to eliminate them.
Question 3. What more can be done to improve retention of women's
careers in trucking?
Answer. While FMCSA is taking appropriate steps to address
harassment and assaults against women in our industry, many of the
measures that will keep female truckers behind the wheel are the same
solutions that will improve the retention of all drivers: Better pay,
better treatment, and better working conditions. One additional issue
that may be particularly important for women truckers is access to safe
truck parking. All truckers need a safe place to rest overnight, but
for women, who face more serious security risks while on the road, it
is especially important to have a safe place to park.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
Lewie Pugh
Promoting Careers in the Trucking Industry. I recently introduced
the Promoting Service in Transportation Act, along with Senators
Sullivan, Rosen, Gardner, and Cortez Masto. This legislation would
promote careers in transportation including trucking, and--to a point
made by Mr. Pugh in his testimony--would encourage a broader pool of
Americans to consider transportation careers. The bill has broad
support from industry and labor groups--including some of the
organizations represented by the witnesses today.
Question 1. Can you share your thoughts on the value in promoting
careers in transportation such as trucking?
Answer. Beginning a career as a professional driver provides
Americans an opportunity to play a critical role in promoting the
safety and prosperity of our Nation. As evidenced by the ongoing COVID-
19 emergency, communities across the country are relying on truckers to
deliver the medical supplies, food, and other necessities to get them
through this extraordinary crisis. We hope the realization that
truckers are an integral part of every American's daily life and help
ensure their wellbeing will generate greater interest in addressing the
problems that currently make trucking a very difficult profession. We
support your efforts to promote carriers in transportation, including
trucking, through S. 3303. But the greatest way to support careers in
trucking is to advance desperately-needed policies that improve
compensation and working conditions. We look forward to working with
you to advance S. 3303 and other important bills that support America's
truckers.
Truck Parking. Thank you for your testimony regarding truck
parking.
Question 2. Can you expound upon the challenge of truck-parking and
the potential solutions you think we can help focus on at the Federal
level?
Answer. A lack of truck parking has put our members in unsafe
situations and more generally, it creates operational challenges. In a
survey of our membership, nearly half of respondents said that they
``often'' or ``on a regular basis'' drove beyond feeling safe and alert
because of a lack of parking. This is a predicament no driver wants to
encounter, but entirely too many are on a daily basis. Furthermore, our
members are routinely put in no-win situations where they must decide
to park in an unsafe or illegal location--such as a vacant lot--or
violate Federal hours-of-service regulations by continuing to search
for a safer and legal alternative. This creates unneeded stress and
complications for them as they try to complete their work in a safe and
timely manner.
Congress should set aside a portion of HTF dollars for the
exclusive purpose of expanding truck parking capacity as part of
surface transportation reauthorization legislation. Under existing
Federal highway programs, states may use funding to construct truck
parking facilities and safety rest areas. Unfortunately, within these
programs, truck parking projects are left to compete with other state
priorities. As a result, very little Federal funding has been devoted
to expanding parking capacity. OOIDA believes the lack of dedicated
Federal funding has contributed to the current truck parking crisis.
We're thrilled that bipartisan legislation has been introduced in
the U.S. House of Representatives--H.R. 6104, the Truck Parking Safety
Improvement Act--that would set-aside funding from existing highway
programs for projects that expand truck parking capacity. This solution
would help states better prioritize truck parking and improve safety
for all highway users. Through our outreach to elected officials in
both chambers, we believe there is strong bipartisan support for this
approach, and anticipate the introduction of a Senate companion to H.R.
6104 in the near future.
The bill also has broad support from stakeholders in the trucking
industry, including the American Trucking Associations, Truckload
Carriers Association, National Association of Small Trucking Companies,
and the Transportation Intermediaries Association, as well as the
National Motorists Association, which represents the motoring public.
Maintaining the status quo will only perpetuate today's crisis, if
not worsen conditions for our members and other highway users. We look
forward to working with members of this Subcommittee to develop and
advance meaningful solutions like the Truck Parking Safety Improvement
Act.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Jake Parnell
Freight Movement. Trucks moved nearly 12 billion tons of cargo in
2018--over 60 percent of our Nation's freight. That number is expected
to increase to nearly 13.8 billion tons by 2030. But our current
infrastructure is in disrepair--the American Society of Engineers
estimate that the lack of investment in our surface transportation
system costs households and businesses nearly $147 billion a year.
Truckers are spending valuable time they could be otherwise moving
goods sitting in miles of traffic due to congestion at our Nation's
ports and blocked grade crossings. These infrastructure reforms must be
a high priority if we are going to keep our trucks moving and cut down
on freight congestion.
Question 1. Do you agree that we should lift the multimodal cap in
the INFRA program in order to address congestion at multimodal
connectors? Why or why not?
Answer. Respectfully, the witness does not have knowledge or
expertise necessary to answer this question and defers to others
providing testimony who may have such background.
Agricultural Haulers. In your testimony, you indicate the need for
livestock haulers to have certain exemptions from Hours of Service
regulations, citing data that you state demonstrates livestock haulers
are safer than other drivers.
Question 3. Do you have data regarding the safety record of
livestock haulers driving for more than 12 hours in a day?
Answer. At this time, this data in the United States is
unfortunately limited to the parameters outlined by the existing Hours
of Service, which limit drivetime to 11 hours. However, industry would
support a pilot program to demonstrate livestock hauler safety when
driving more than 12 hours per day.
Question 4. How frequently do livestock haulers find themselves
having to unsafely unload their livestock on the side of the road, and
how many livestock are injured or killed every year because drivers did
not have a safe place to unload their livestock?
Answer. Livestock haulers have an important responsibility to
ensure animal welfare and part of their pre-trip planning is to try to
identify places where they can safely unload if need be. Ultimately, it
is highly preferred for the drivers to simply reach their destination,
rather than having to unload partway along their journey. Nation-wide
data on how often livestock haulers are in the situation of having to
unload in an unsafe location and how many animals are injured or killed
every year because of that situation is not reported.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to
Jake Parnell
The lack of information about national road restrictions on
smartphone-based navigation applications. In recent years, many drivers
have shifted from using standalone global position system (GPS) units
to smartphone-based navigation applications like Waze, Google Maps, or
Apple Maps. These services offer valuable directions for passenger
traffic but do not currently make information about national road
restrictions like those on height, weight, or hazardous materials
available to users.
As a result, commercial vehicle operators that rely on these
applications are often directed to enter restricted roadways, which can
cause accidents that adversely impact traffic patterns, inflict damage
to roadways and overpasses, and even result in fatalities.
As more commercial vehicle drivers use these applications, we can
expect accidents and damage to roadways to increase, unless a solution
is found.
In Connecticut, the Merritt Parkway prohibits travel by commercial
vehicles because of low overpass clearances along the road.
Unfortunately, commercial vehicles frequently travel on the parkways
and strike their bridges. In fact, oversized vehicles struck the King
Street Bridge in Greenwich, Connecticut nearly 150 times in the last
decade. In 2017, a man died after rear-ending a truck that stopped
short of the Stanwich Road Bridge in Greenwich, Connecticut. Similar
crashes are common in other areas of the country as well.
I have written to the companies that manage these applications--
asking them to help solve this issue by providing clear and timely
notification to commercial vehicle drivers about restrictions in their
route. So far, their response is inadequate and they do not seem to
appreciate the gravity of this issue.
Question 1. As I consider a legislative response to address this
issue, I am interested to hear from you about ways we can effectively
deal with the presence of tucks on roads with posted restrictions.
Answer. Respectfully, the witness does not have knowledge or
expertise necessary to answer this question and defers to others
providing testimony who may have such background.
Question 2. I know that we will need companies like Apple and
Google to take the issue seriously, but is there more that we can do to
address these concerns outside of direct engagement from the tech
companies, such as increased funding to states to enhance signage and
preventative warnings?
Answer. Respectfully, the witness does not have knowledge or
expertise necessary to answer this question and defers to others
providing testimony who may have such background.
The benefits of side underride guards. Recently, Texas A&M was
contracted by NHTSA to research the best design for a side guard. In
April 2018, they published their results and recommended an aluminum
brace system would be the most effective at stopping a car at many
different angles. The total weight (both sides) of this aluminum side
brace system was 252 pounds.
Question 3. In addition to saving lives and thereby reducing
insurance costs, would a new rule requiring these braces also
potentially create jobs by American aluminum producers and
manufacturers across America?
Answer. Respectfully, the witness does not have knowledge or
expertise necessary to answer this question and defers to others
providing testimony who may have such background.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
Jake Parnell
Promoting Careers in the Trucking Industry. I recently introduced
the Promoting Service in Transportation Act, along with Senators
Sullivan, Rosen, Gardner, and Cortez Masto. This legislation would
promote careers in transportation including trucking, and--to a point
made by Mr. Pugh in his testimony--would encourage a broader pool of
Americans to consider transportation careers. The bill has broad
support from industry and labor groups--including some of the
organizations represented by the witnesses today.
Question 1. Can you share your thoughts on the value in promoting
careers in transportation such as trucking?
Answer. The witness testifies on behalf of an organization (the
Livestock Marketing Association) that does not have developed policy on
this legislation.
Livestock Haulers. You noted in your testimony some of the
difficult challenges that livestock haulers face--from the welfare and
security of the animals to the challenges of not having a place to
unload the animals while a driver rests. You also noted how few
accidents occur with livestock transporters.
Question 2. Do you or others have information about why livestock
haulers appear to have a better safety record?
Answer. A livestock hauler is forced by the nature of their live
cargo to drive slower and more cautiously than a conventional cargo
hauler because the live animals move throughout the trailer and can be
severely injured if the driver turns too suddenly or drives too fast.
Safety is so important to the livestock industry that many livestock
haulers have participated in additional specialized training, including
the beef industry's Master Cattle Transporter (MCT) program, which
provide instruction on proper animal handling, transportation methods,
and focus on preventing driver fatigue.
Due to all of this, livestock haulers boast a fantastic safety
record. For instance, the Large Truck Crash Causation Study, conducted
by the FMCSA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Institute, showed
that of 1,123 accidents involving trucks hauling cargo, a mere five
involved livestock transporters. Similarly, Trucks Involved in Fatal
Accidents Factbook 2008, a report conducted by the Transportation
Research Institute, shows that of 4,352 trucks involved in fatal
accidents, livestock haulers accounted for just 0.6 percent.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Deb Fischer to
Sgt. John Samis
Question 1. A concern I hear from truck drivers, especially long-
haul drivers, is that law enforcement across different states either
focus on certain safety requirements more strictly than others, or that
some states are generally more strict than others. Can there be
differences in enforcement between states, and if so, is there a reason
for that?
Answer. While the jurisdictions strive for uniformity in how the
North American Standard Inspection Program is conducted across the
country, that does not mean that there will be uniformity in
enforcement rates from state to state. There is and always will be
differences from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, as states use the best
available data to design enforcement programs that are tailored to meet
the needs of their specific state and region. Each state and area of
the country face unique challenges to highway safety, influenced by
differences in prevalent sectors of industry, geography and other
factors. With limited resources, states design enforcement programs to
address their unique safety challenges and prioritize enforcement of
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations that have demonstrated the
largest safety concerns in their area, all with the goal of reducing
crashes and fatalities. Focused, tailored enforcement demonstrates an
incredible responsiveness and flexibility on behalf of the various
enforcement agencies and the ability of these jurisdictions to adapt to
the areas of prime safety concern.
There are a number of reasons for differences in enforcement
priorities from state to state. Differences may be tied to trends in
driver behavior that have been identified and enforcement is trying to
combat. For example, a jurisdiction may focus on speeding because they
are seeing that many drivers (car and truck) are operating in excess of
the posted speed limits. States with high traffic corridors generally
focus more on driving violations and driver inspections as opposed to
vehicle inspections (i.e., parts of I-95 and I-81).
Some states are ``probable cause'' states, which means inspection
reports will be associated with a primary traffic offense, such as
speeding. These states, by their nature, may have fewer inspections
with no violations listed because they must have a reason to pull the
vehicle over in the first place. There are also differences due to
geographic variances. Mountainous regions will tend to have more brake
violations, heavy rain or snow can impact trends.
Diversity in industry results in variance as well. For example, the
logging industry in the northeast, versus the agricultural industry in
the Midwest. The lengths of hauls are different, vehicle types and
configurations are different, traffic patterns and makeup, weather,
types of roadways and terrain, etc.
State programs not only include enforcement and inspection
activities but also tactics like education, outreach and technology
deployments to address the safety challenges. Continued flexibility is
needed to enable states to address diverse safety challenges in order
to improve highway safety.
Detention time. Drivers can be detained at shipping and receiving
facilities beyond an agreed-on amount of time, known as detention time.
In 2018, the DOT Inspector General found that a 15-minute increase in
dwell time at a facility increases a driver's expected crash rate, on
average, by 6.2 percent. Additionally, less time driving means less pay
for the driver.
Background: Drivers can be detained at shipping and receiving
facilities beyond an agreed on amount of time, known as detention time.
In 2018, the DOT Inspector General found that a 15-minute increase in
dwell time at a facility increases a driver's expected crash rate, on
average, by 6.2 percent. Additionally, less time driving means less pay
for the driver.
Question 2. What efforts are currently being taken by trucking
stakeholders to work with shippers to lower detention time?
Answer. Drivers continue to face challenges with extended wait
times at pickup and delivery locations, facing delays that impact their
hours of service and productivity. The issue is a well-documented
challenge, with clear impacts on motor carrier safety, particularly
with regards to fatigue management. While CVSA is supportive of finding
a solution to this problem, the state commercial motor vehicle
enforcement programs and CVSA do not have the necessary expertise to
propose specific solutions. The motor carrier and shipper/receiver
industry are better positioned to offer suggestions.
Question 3. Are there steps that Congress could take to address
this issue without heavy-handed mandates?
Answer. While CVSA is supportive of finding a solution to this
problem, the state commercial motor vehicle enforcement programs and
CVSA do not have the necessary expertise to propose specific solutions.
The motor carrier and shipper/receiver industry are better positioned
to offer suggestions.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Sgt. John Samis
Truck Parking. I have heard from many of my constituents in law
enforcement and the trucking community, and from you here today, that
truck parking is a huge challenge. In my home state of Washington, 46
percent of truck drivers say they drive fatigued as a result of
insufficient parking. When truck stops are full, or when there is
inadequate parking available, trucks often park on highway ramps or
shoulders, creating a safety risk for all road users.
Parking in unsafe areas also puts truck drivers at risk. A Federal
survey found that 90 percent of drivers have struggled to find safe
parking at night, and according to a Washington Department of
Transportation study, 59 percent of truckers reported they are
frequently concerned with safety--day or night.
This is also an issue of freight mobility. With trucks lined up for
miles waiting to get into our ports and across grade crossings, that is
time that could be otherwise spent moving goods across the country.
With freight movement expected to rise 40 percent in the next decade--
up to $26 trillion--we have to address this issue if we're going to
keep our economy moving in the right direction.
Question. How should we be addressing the issue of truck parking in
a transportation reauthorization bill?
Answer. CVSA supports investments in technology and infrastructure
to address the Nation's truck parking shortage. The availability of
adequate parking facilities, strategically placed throughout the U.S.,
is a critical commercial motor vehicle safety issue. Parking facilities
need to be available to drivers who are trying to comply with hours-of-
service requirements, as well as those who are fatigued. Without
adequate parking facilities, drivers are faced with either driving over
hours or parking in an unsafe location. It should be noted that there
are a number of technological solutions being discussed to help better
manage the existing available parking. While all options should be
explored and every little bit will help, it's important to keep in mind
that we need more parking spaces. Technology alone will not solve this
problem. While CVSA is supportive of finding a solution to this
problem, the state commercial motor vehicle enforcement programs and
CVSA do not have the necessary expertise to propose specific solutions.
State agencies that manage road design and infrastructure are better
positioned to offer suggestions.
______
Response to Writtens Question Submitted by Hon. Tammy Duckworth to
Sgt. John Samis
Universal electronic vehicle identifier. In your testimony, you
mention that law enforcement needs tools like the universal electronic
vehicle identifier to improve safety.
Question 1. How would the universal electronic vehicle identifier
help law enforcement improve safety?
Answer. The purpose of commercial motor vehicle enforcement is to
ensure compliance with the Federal safety regulations. Through
enforcement activities, commercial motor vehicle inspectors identify
drivers and vehicles who are not operating safely and require them to
comply with the safety regulations or discontinue operation. The
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), which dictate
manufacturing standards, and the corresponding Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSR), which outline the in-service maintenance
requirements, are in place to provide the minimum requirements for safe
operation of commercial motor vehicles. Ensuring compliance with those
regulations improves safety. Requiring the creation of a universal
electronic vehicle identifier would allow enforcement to reach more of
industry and improve their ability to identify unsafe drivers and
vehicles for intervention.
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 the enforcement community comes into contact with; however, some
of these technologies are used voluntarily and others are deployed with
varying degrees of effectiveness. A universal electronic vehicle
identifier would allow law enforcement to be more effective in the
inspection selection process, targeting the drivers and carriers who
are most in need of intervention, improving safety.
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. In June 2019, commercial motor vehicle
inspectors conducted a 3-day enforcement blitz where 67,072 inspections
were conducted in North America. Of those vehicles inspected, 17.9
percent were identified as having safety violations critical enough
that they were placed out of service and not permitted to operate
without fixing the violation. The deployment of a universal electronic
vehicle identifier would improve the effectiveness of enforcement
programs while reducing costs, for both enforcement and industry, which
in turn will allow enforcement to better identify and prioritize those
vehicles and drivers who are operating unsafely.
In order to move forward with full deployment, however, enforcement
must have a universal mechanism for electronically identifying all
commercial motor vehicles. This can be accomplished with minimal cost
and disruption, and the safety and economic benefits will be
substantial for the enforcement community, motor carrier industry and
driving public.
Hours of Service. In your testimony, you mention the importance of
legislation and regulations considering the impact on law enforcement.
Question 2. Are the current hours of service rules clear and
enforceable?
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. Overall, the current hours-of-service regulations are
complicated. However, the trucking industry is a diverse industry and
complicated regulations are likely unavoidable. However, steps can be
taken to mitigate the complexity. First, continuity is critical. If
changes to the regulations are necessary, they should be done as
infrequently as possible. Piecemeal changes every year or two make it
incredibly difficult for inspectors to remain up to date on the
regulations. Limiting the frequency of updates would help address this
and limit the number of training updates necessary.
In addition, the current hours-of-service rules have several
provisions that lack clarity and enforceability. This issue is further
complicated by the numerous hours-of-service exemptions granted to
various portions of the industry and regulatory guidance issued in lieu
of updating the underlying regulations.
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.
Additionally, exemptions from Federal safety regulations have the
potential to undermine safety, while also complicating the enforcement
process. Each exemption granted creates an additional complexity to the
hours-of-service rules by changing the rules for different motor
carriers or segments of the motor carrier industry. For example, the
agricultural commodity exemption allows transporters of agricultural
commodities to drive within 150 air-miles of their origin without
recording any RODS. They only start recording their RODS after leaving
the 150 air-mile radius. Not only is this unsafe because it easily
creates a scenario where a driver can become fatigued by driving well
beyond the hours-of-service limits, but it also requires inspectors and
the motor carrier industry to understand the details of the exemption
to determine if the driver qualifies for the exemption and, if they do,
what portions (if any) of the hours-of-service regulations they are
required to follow. This is just one example of the many exemptions,
each one further complicating the hours-of-service regulations by
providing special subsets of rules for different motor carriers or
segments of the motor carrier industry to follow.
Regulatory guidance that never gets adopted as actual regulation
further complicates the enforcement process. In an effort to address
the growing backlog of needed regulatory updates, 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. A more recent example of
this is the regulatory guidance published in Nov. 2018 on the use of
the `personal conveyance' designation within a driver's hours-of-
service records. Personal conveyance is a provision within the
regulations that allows for the personal use of a commercial motor
vehicle that does not count towards a driver's hours-of-service limits.
The intent of this designation is to allow a driver to travel for short
distances to do things like find a safe place to park, eat a meal, etc.
The published guidance significantly altered how personal conveyance is
interpreted and applied, without changing the actual regulations. Most
notably, the provision, which provides no maximum on how many miles or
hours a driver can operate under personal conveyance, allowed vehicles
to be laden with cargo while operating under the personal conveyance
designation. This change has made it much more complicated for industry
and enforcement to determine when exactly a driver qualifies for
personal conveyance. Further, it has made the overall hours-of-service
regulations less enforceable because a driver can drive far beyond the
hours-of-service limits to further their load while falsely claiming
they were using the vehicle for personal use. The actual reason for a
driver's movements is very difficult to verify during a roadside
inspection when they claim to be operating under personal conveyance,
undermining the enforceability of the hours-of-service limits. To
address the personal conveyance issue, CVSA supports the establishment
of a maximum distance the personal conveyance designation can be used
each day.
Clear and enforceable regulations provide both the motor carrier
industry and law enforcement with clear direction on how to ensure
safety. Clear regulations help improve industry adherence to the rules
and enforceability ensures that law enforcement is able to verify
compliance.
Underride Guards. In their March 2019 report, Truck Underride
Guards: Improved Data Collection, Inspections, and Research Needed
(GAO-19-264), the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommends
that USDOT take steps to standardize definitions for underride crashes
and data fields, share information with law enforcement to better
identify underride crashes, establish annual inspection requirements
for rear guards and conduct additional research. DOT concurred with
GAO's recommendations.
Question 3. Do you support the DOT and GAO assessment that the
number of underride accidents has been undercounted and that better
mechanisms for recording these types of accidents is warranted?
Answer. A better mechanism for collecting quality and uniform crash
data, including data on underride crashes, is needed. Quality data is a
fundamental piece of an effective commercial motor vehicle safety
enforcement program. Commercial motor vehicle crash data identifies
trends and problem areas that are utilized to craft enforcement and
education initiatives to target specific safety problems. Current
variances in definitions, data collection methods and data points
collected from crashes make comparing data on a national scale
difficult. These variances have likely resulted in underreporting of
underride crashes, as well as crashes involving fatigue and other crash
factors.
To improve the quality of crash data, CVSA encourages the adoption
of the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC). The MMUCC provide
a standardized data set for describing vehicle crashes. Universal
adoption of the MMUCC would allow for a more comparable data set at the
national level to better evaluate the causes of crashes to inform
policy and program decisions.
Question 4. For roadside inspections examining all parts of a
vehicle, including the rear guard, would a standardized set of
definitions and procedures benefit law enforcement efforts to determine
whether large trucks are operating safely? Please explain.
Answer. Standardized definitions and procedures help ensure that
both the law enforcement community and the motor carrier industry
understand the minimum safety requirements. 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. One of CVSA's core tenants is
enforcement uniformity. Clear standards provide inspectors with the
information they need to evaluate commercial motor vehicle safety.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to
Sgt. John Samis
The lack of information about national road restrictions on
smartphone-based navigation applications. In recent years, many drivers
have shifted from using standalone global position system (GPS) units
to smartphone-based navigation applications like Waze, Google Maps, or
Apple Maps. These services offer valuable directions for passenger
traffic but do not currently make information about national road
restrictions like those on height, weight, or hazardous materials
available to users.
As a result, commercial vehicle operators that rely on these
applications are often directed to enter restricted roadways, which can
cause accidents that adversely impact traffic patterns, inflict damage
to roadways and overpasses, and even result in fatalities.
As more commercial vehicle drivers use these applications, we can
expect accidents and damage to roadways to increase, unless a solution
is found.
In Connecticut, the Merritt Parkway prohibits travel by commercial
vehicles because of low overpass clearances along the road.
Unfortunately, commercial vehicles frequently travel on the parkways
and strike their bridges. In fact, oversized vehicles struck the King
Street Bridge in Greenwich, Connecticut nearly 150 times in the last
decade. In 2017, a man died after rear-ending a truck that stopped
short of the Stanwich Road Bridge in Greenwich, Connecticut. Similar
crashes are common in other areas of the country as well.
I have written to the companies that manage these applications--
asking them to help solve this issue by providing clear and timely
notification to commercial vehicle drivers about restrictions in their
route. So far, their response is inadequate and they do not seem to
appreciate the gravity of this issue.
Question 1. As I consider a legislative response to address this
issue, I am interested to hear from you about ways we can effectively
deal with the presence of tucks on roads with posted restrictions.
Answer. CVSA appreciates your efforts to address the issue of
commercial motor vehicles traveling on roads that they are not
permitted to be on. While CVSA agrees this issue merits attention, the
state commercial motor vehicle enforcement programs and CVSA do not
have the necessary expertise to propose solutions. State agencies that
manage road design and infrastructure are better positioned to offer
solutions.
Question 2. I know that we will need companies like Apple and
Google to take the issue seriously, but is there more that we can do to
address these concerns outside of direct engagement from the tech
companies, such as increased funding to states to enhance signage and
preventative warnings?
Answer. CVSA appreciates your efforts to address the issue of
commercial motor vehicles traveling on roads that they are not
permitted to be on. While CVSA agrees this issue merits attention, the
state commercial motor vehicle enforcement programs and CVSA do not
have the necessary expertise to propose solutions. State agencies that
manage road design and infrastructure are better positioned to offer
solutions.
The benefits of side underride guards. Recently, Texas A&M was
contracted by NHTSA to research the best design for a side guard. In
April 2018, they published their results and recommended an aluminum
brace system would be the most effective at stopping a car at many
different angles. The total weight (both sides) of this aluminum side
brace system was 252 pounds.
Question 3. In addition to saving lives and thereby reducing
insurance costs, would a new rule requiring these braces also
potentially create jobs by American aluminum producers and
manufacturers across America?
Answer. While CVSA is supportive of improving crash worthiness
standards, we do not have the necessary expertise to speak to the
potential job creation of a requirement for aluminum side underride
guards.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
Sgt. John Samis
Question 1. You noted in your testimony that there have been
numerous regulatory delays at FMCSA and that your organization has seen
many of your petitions and calls for technical corrections go
unaddressed. Are these failures to act contributing to safety issues
and inefficiencies in the industry?
Answer. The buildup of necessary technical corrections in the
safety regulations causes confusion and negatively impacts safety. The
purpose of commercial motor vehicle enforcement is to ensure compliance
with the Federal safety regulations. Through enforcement activities,
commercial motor vehicle inspectors identify drivers and vehicles who
are not operating safely and require them to comply with the safety
regulations or discontinue operation. 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 (FMCSR) understand their
responsibilities and that those tasked with enforcing 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, technical errors have resulted in
inconsistent, outdated and redundant regulatory language. These errors
have compounded to make portions of the regulations challenging to
understand which in turn makes it more difficult for industry and
enforcement to understand the minimum safety requirements. This results
in a lower level of compliance and more difficulty enforcing the
regulations, which negatively impacts safety.
There are several factors that have contributed to the growing
delay in regulatory action at FMCSA. We recognize that many of these
factors are outside the agency's control. However, 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.
Question 2. You noted that in the FAST Act we directed FMCSA to
improve its information technology (IT) systems and data quality. You
also noted that you're tracking FMCSA's progress on this--can you
provide an update on implementation here?
Answer. Effective IT systems are critical for improving safety.
These systems ensure that commercial motor vehicle inspectors have the
information they need to verify driver, vehicle and motor carrier
safety. Additionally, these systems provide the infrastructure to
collect data that informs the design of commercial motor vehicle safety
programs to make sure resources are being used to target the greatest
safety needs. In terms of FMCSA's progress on implementing the FAST Act
requirements to improve these IT systems, it is CVSA's understanding
that FMCSA will be issuing a request for proposal (RFP) sometime during
the second quarter of 2020, soliciting bids to replace the current
roadside inspection data collection software, ASPEN. The ASPEN program
is a legacy software program that has outlived its life cycle and is in
dire need of replacement. ASPEN was developed by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), prior to the creation of FMCSA on January 1,
2000, as the data collection tool for the roadside enforcement and
inspection community. Through this process FMCSA should select a new
software program that is able to improve roadside inspection data by
hard-coding violations and implement smart logic to assist with
directing the data into the correct format and location, which will
greatly enhance the roadside inspection data collection process. In
addition, the state's access and management of their roadside
enforcement and inspection data is managed through another FMCSA legacy
system called SAFETYNET. From CVSA's understanding, the replacement of
the SAFETYNET platform may be included in the upcoming RFP.
[all]