Congressional crosshairs

Several transportation officials, including the leaders of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, testified at a House subcommittee hearing in December. Although the purpose of the hearing was to discuss the implementation of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, several lawmakers used the opportunity to point out many of truck drivers’ top concerns.

The continuous thread of remarks from lawmakers indicated that truck drivers’ voices are being heard on such topics as speed limiters, automatic emergency braking systems, broker transparency and restroom access.

“Listen to the truckers,” said Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas. “I think they would know better than bureaucrats and, specifically, Congress on this.”

As we begin 2024, the Dec. 13 Highways and Transit Subcommittee hearing provides some hope that many of truckers’ advocacy efforts are resonating with members of Congress.

Speed limiters

Most truck drivers oppose a rulemaking that would require speed limiters on most commercial motor vehicles. If that were ever in question, it was put to rest after FMCSA issued a supplemental advance notice of proposed rulemaking in 2022. The agency received about 15,000 comments, with an overwhelming majority coming from truck drivers opposed to a mandate. Some even said they would leave the profession if the mandate takes effect.

The hearing was evidence that at least a few lawmakers noticed the opposition from truck drivers.

A proposed speed limiter mandate – in many cases – would force truckers to drive below the legal speed.

Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill., voiced his concerns to FMCSA Administrator Robin Hutcheson about the speed differentials a mandate would cause between cars and trucks on the highway. He pointed out that many states used to have separate speed limits for cars and heavy-duty trucks on their highways but opted for a universal speed limit once they witnessed the problems caused by vehicles on the same road forced to travel different speeds.

“There’s two problems,” Bost said. “One, when I was a state legislator in Illinois, we had one speed limit for cars and one limit for trucks. And we discovered through our research that it caused more wrecks than if everyone just went with the flow of traffic. The other problem that you have is that if you have a skilled driver, you’ve just limited his ability to use speed to react to get away and protect while driving a vehicle.”

Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., also noted that the combination of forcing truck drivers to operate below highway speed limits and work under strict hours-of-service regulations could encourage speeding in slower zones.

“Many of these truckers may end up in a situation where they have to make up time,” Burlison said. “And because they have the speed limiter, the only place to make up time is in city streets, suburbs and construction zones. Are you concerned about the motivation that you’re creating that, I think, would reduce safety in these important areas?”

Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., cited some of the comments from truck drivers who oppose the rulemaking.

“These drivers give many examples of situations in which they need to accelerate for safety, whether it’s merging into highway speed traffic, building momentum to go up a hill or simply keeping up with the flow of traffic,” Van Drew said. “It is a hard and difficult job, and they do it well. Your policy would take those options away from them. We’re tired of this. We’re tired of big government. One gentleman, his comment was, ‘This is a stupid idea. The policy is overreach.’ We’re tired of overreach. It’s a classic example of government coming to save us … There’s a lot of independent truckers, and they would be harmed by this policy.”

Considering that most truck drivers are paid by the mile, slowing trucks down below the speed limit would cost them money.

“Have you estimated how many employee drivers would be impacted by your proposal and how it would affect their earnings?” Van Drew asked the administrator.

Hutcheson declined to answer specific questions about the speed limiter rulemaking until a formal proposal is released. As of press time in early January, FMCSA still hadn’t submitted the notice of proposed rulemaking to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review.

Once the proposal clears the White House, it will be published in the Federal Register and open to another round of public comment. It is expected that the notice will finally include a top speed.

Safety groups have lobbied to slow trucks down to 60 mph even though some highways have speed limits as fast as 85 mph. Additionally, 70 and 75 mph zones are extremely common. If safety advocates get their way, trucks could be forced to go 30 mph below the general flow of traffic in some instances.

Nehls encouraged Hutcheson to listen to truck drivers’ concerns and cited articles in Land Line Magazine that point to some of the problems involving speed limiters.

“I hope you consider the 15,000 comments from truck drivers who have provided input on this rulemaking,” Nehls said.

Assuming the agency doesn’t plan to change course, numerous members of Congress support legislation to stop a speed limiter mandate. The DRIVE Act would prevent FMCSA from moving forward with a rulemaking. As of press time, the DRIVE Act had 32 co-sponsors in the House and nine in the Senate.

Collin Long, OOIDA’s director of government affairs, said the hearing could serve as a catalyst to gain more support for the DRIVE Act.

“It didn’t appear the agency was prepared to answer some difficult but totally fair and reasonable questions about its proposal,” Long said. “To me, that reinforced what OOIDA has been saying all along – by focusing exclusively on the hope of reducing crash severity, the agency isn’t properly considering all the negative effects and unintended consequences of a speed limiter mandate. Hopefully, this validates a lot of the concerns we’ve raised with lawmakers and convinces more to join our fight against the regulation. Right now, it appears Congress may be the only force capable of preventing a mandate, and I believe the hearing will result in greater support for our efforts to pass the DRIVE Act.”

Automatic emergency braking systems

Speed limiters aren’t the only way the federal government is relying on technology to reduce crashes.

FMCSA and NHTSA published a proposal in July that would require automatic emergency braking systems and electronic stability control systems on new vehicles that weigh more than 10,000 pounds.

The proposal calls for all Class 7 and 8 vehicles – those weighing more than 26,000 pounds – to be required to meet the AEB standards three years after the rule takes effect. All Class 3 to 6 vehicles – those weighing 10,001 to 26,000 pounds – would be required to meet the AEB and electronic stability control requirements in four years. Small-volume manufacturers would have until five years after the final rule took effect. There would not be any retrofit requirements on existing heavy vehicles.

Several lawmakers peppered Hutcheson and Ann Carlson, who was NHTSA’s acting administrator at the time, with questions about another potential mandate.

Nehls and Mike Collins, R-Ga., pointed to examples of false activations and questioned if the technology is ready to be mandated.

Nehls cited the October 2023 issue of Land Line Magazine, which features a story about truck driver Carrie Moore’s experience with AEB technology while driving on a snowy Michigan highway in 2022. Moore said a false activation from the emergency brakes caused her truck to jackknife and nearly crash into a median.

“(The article) talks about one of the truck drivers,” Nehls told Carlson. “It was either a shadow or the guardrail that caused her to lose control, and this thing scared the hell out of her … This can be very, very dangerous … You need to read this when it talks about these brakes and how dangerous it’s going to be.”

Moore’s tale of a false braking activation isn’t isolated. NHTSA opened an investigation into false automatic braking on certain Freightliner and Western Star trucks earlier this year. There were 18 complaints of false AEB activation “without an actual roadway obstacle.” In some instances, the false activation brought the truck to a complete stop in the travel lane. NHTSA did not report any crashes caused by the false braking.

The investigation, which could affect as many as 250,000 trucks, aims to determine if the alleged defect creates an unreasonable safety risk.

Despite the investigation of false braking, NHTSA and FMCSA still plan to move forward with the proposal. A final rule is projected to be released in April.

Collins, who operates a trucking company, told Hutcheson and Carlson that the technology is not ready.

“I probably own about 80 trucks with the collision avoidance … I will tell you, they are not bulletproof,” Collins said. “They’re nowhere near it … We all want to be safe. That’s why I tried them. But they don’t work perfectly, and they’re very expensive. The technology is not there.”

According to the agencies, the proposal would “conservatively prevent an estimated 19,118 crashes, save 155 lives and reduce 8,814 non-fatal injuries annually once all vehicles covered in this rule are equipped with AEB and electronic stability control.”

“So our best sense is that with the appropriate time, which is something that we consider in finalizing the rule, the technology will save hundreds of lives and prevent thousands of injuries,” Carlson said.

Broker fraud

Instead of relying on technology to promote safety, Bost encouraged FMCSA to tackle the issue of broker fraud, which forces many safe, experienced drivers out of the industry.

Overall freight fraud is estimated to cost the trucking industry as much as $800 million annually.

“We have people who are out there that are claiming to be brokers,” Bost said at the hearing. “The truck drivers are out there trying to find loads or their companies are trying to find loads for them, and they use this broker. The broker all of a sudden comes in … and they broker the load. Now by the time that driver then gets back in and … is ready to be paid … that particular company is no longer in existence, or you can no longer find them.”

Bost, who has a trucking background, said that broker fraud can be particularly devastating to small motor carriers.

“Is there anything that your agency is doing … as far as the fraud that is occurring out there? We’re losing a tremendous amount of smaller companies and owner-operators,” he said. “Because it’s one thing if a great big company takes a $2,000 loss or $5,000 loss, but the smaller companies can’t take that.”

FMCSA recently issued a final rule on broker financial responsibility and plans to address broker transparency in October 2024.

“We unequivocally share your concerns about the impact of fraud on the industry and, specifically, broker fraud,” Hutcheson said. “We are taking steps. First and foremost, we issued a financial responsibility rule that will ensure its security limit for brokers and freight forwarders is increased to $75,000. We know that’s not enough. We are also taking steps to improve transparency in transactions. We’ve been listening to our stakeholders, working very closely with OOIDA, TIA and others.”

In a petition filed in December, OOIDA told the agency it didn’t go far enough in its final rule on broker financial responsibility. The Association also urged FMCSA to address broker transparency as soon as possible.

Restroom access for truckers

In another show of support for truck drivers, Nehls used the hearing as an opportunity to ask Hutcheson for support of his bill that would ensure restroom access.

In June, Nehls and Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., introduced the bipartisan Trucker Bathroom Access Act. The goal of HR3869 is to make sure that truck drivers are allowed to use a restroom facility while they are waiting for freight to be loaded or unloaded.

The bill does not require businesses to construct new restrooms. Instead, it would mandate only that truck drivers be granted access if a business has a restroom available to its customers or employees.

“We believe in dignified working conditions,” Hutcheson said.

The Trucker Bathroom Access Act is supported by OOIDA, the Women in Trucking Association and the American Trucking Associations.

Since early in the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been increased reports of truck drivers being denied restroom access.

“All the truckers running are running trying to find a way to relieve themselves and find a bathroom to go to,” Nehls said. “(The bill) just makes sense. We should provide access to bathrooms for these truckers.”

And during a time when the trucking industry is actively trying to recruit more female drivers, Nehls cited the lack of restroom access as another hurdle.

“It’s easier for fellas to just go behind the truck,” Nehls said. “But what’s a lady going to do? She’s got to have access to a bathroom.” LL