On July 9, 2008, the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure took testimony on the subject of truck weight and length regulations. Generally, federal regulations limit truck weight to a maximum of 20,000 pounds for single axles, 34,000 pounds for tandem axles, with a total Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) limit of 80,000 pounds. These limits have been in effect since 1974.

The issue of whether trucks of greater width and weight should be allowed on our highways has recently received greater attention. Generally, the trucking industry contends that larger trucks are needed to handle an ever increasing flow of cargo across the country. Safety advocates, on the other hand, claim that bigger trucks will increase to number of truck related crashes and damage our aging roads and bridges.

On behalf of the Teamster’s Union, truckers testified that larger trucks would be unsafe. Specifically, they argued that road widths, automobile traffic, and short highway entrance ramps all make bigger trucks too dangerous. Trucking industry representatives, on the other hand, claim that bigger trucks are needed to off-set increased fuel costs, address increased demand for freight transportation, and harmonize federal and state regulations.

A summary of the hearing subject matter, the written testimony of the witnesses, and a video of the hearing itself are all available at the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee website.

In a move to prevent truckers from cheating on mandatory drug testing, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (”FMCSA”) announced a new rule on June 25 that requires drug testers to check for evidence of tempering with urine samples. The new rule addresses concern over the availability and use of products designed to alter urine samples to hide illegal drug usage. As part of the findings in support of the new rule, the FMCSA noted: “The DOT continues to believe that mandatory testing for specimen validity is an appropriate response to the use of adulterants and attempts to subvert the collection and testing process.”

If drug testers detect possible tampering, under some circumstances, the new rule requires, for example, collection of another urine sample under “direct observation”.

The new rule is available in its entirety here. It goes into effect on August 25.

The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) held its annual Roadcheck from June 3 through June 5, 2008. The CVSA is an association of state, provincial, and federal officials responsible for the administration and enforcement of motor carrier safety laws in the United States, Canada and Mexico. More than 10,000 truck safety inspectors conducted non-stop truck inspections in 1500 locations throughout the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

The results of past Roadchecks are sobering. In 2007, for example, the CVSA conducted more than 62,000 inspections. More than 21% of trucks inspected were placed out of service for mechanical problems, as were more than 6% of drivers. National statistics for 2008 are not yet available, but the Texas highway patrol reports a similarly significant number of safety violations again this year, with more than 24% of inspected vehicles taken out of service in Texas. These violations predominately involved brake systems, tire or wheel problems, and light malfunctions.

The results of Roadchecks from 2001 through 2006 is available at the CVSA website here.

On October 10, 2007, the Commercial Motor Vehicle Advanced Safety Technology Tax Act of 2007 (H.R. 3820) was introduced in the House of Representatives. The bill seeks to encourage the use of advanced safety technology in commercial trucking by providing a tax credit to trucking companies.

The legislation’s “congressional findings” detail the tremendous human and economic costs associated with truck crashes:

(1) Commercial motor vehicle crashes remain a primary source of concern in the United States, particularly in light of the increasing numbers of trucks and motorcoaches on the Nation’s roads and their critical role in the transportation of hazardous materials.

(2) A 2004 report by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program found that when a large truck is involved in a crash, it is about 2.6 times as likely to result in a fatality compared with passenger cars.

(3) The number of fatalities associated with large truck crashes is a significant portion of all crash fatalities in the United States. In 2005, 5,212 individuals died and 114,000 individuals were injured as a result of large truck-related crashes in the United States. Overall, from 2001 to 2005, there have been 25,533 large truck-related fatalities in the United States.

(4) In addition to the tremendous human loss, these crashes also impose a significant economic cost on society. The Department of Transportation estimates that highway crashes cost society $230.6 billion a year, about $820 per person. A 2006 report issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration determined that the estimated cost of each crash involving a truck with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds is $91,112 while the average cost of a fatal crash is $3,604,518.

 

(5) Investments by vehicle suppliers and truck and motorcoach manufacturers in research and innovative design have created a new generation of advanced safety systems and technologies.

 

(6) Advanced safety technologies will directly address, and help mitigate the effects of, commercial motor vehicle crash scenarios.

 

(7) The Department of Transportation has set a goal to reduce the traffic fatality rate to 1.0 per hundred million vehicle miles traveled by 2011.

 

(8) The accelerated production, sale, and deployment of advanced safety technologies on commercial motor vehicles can speed the progress toward this critical goal and reduce the daily injuries and fatalities on the Nation’s roads and highways. This progress would also help to mitigate the societal cost of these crashes.

(9) Therefore, Congress finds that it is in the interest of the United States to increase the deployment of advanced vehicle safety technologies on commercial motor vehicles in the domestic market by providing businesses with tax incentives, designed to make such systems more affordable for purchase.

(The full text of the bill is available at the Library of Congress website by searching for ‘H3820′.)

The bill proposes to give a tax credit in an amount equal to one half of the cost of certain advanced technology safety systems including “brake stroke monitoring systems”, “lane departure warning systems”, “collision warning systems”, and “vehicle stability systems.” The tax credit is limited to $350,000 per trucking company.

Of course, the legislation is heavily favored by the companies which manufacture these safety systems, such as Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems. Through its trade group, the Motor and Equipment Manufacturer’s Association, it recently lobbied congress, for the second time this year, for the passage of this legislation. From the standpoint of public safety, however, any measures designed to reduce the number and severity of truck crashes are welcome additions.

Truck safety advocates often battle with the trucking industry over truck safety legislation. Recently, the issue of truck weight limits took center stage. The trucking industry favors higher weight limits for more profitable operations. Truck safety advocates contend that heavier trucks pose greater risk to the motoring public.

On May 13 and 14 2008, the trucking industry group Americans for Safe and Efficient Transportation (ASET) hosted a “fly-in” to lobby congress for legislation increasing the weight limit for heavy trucks from the current 80,000 pounds to 97,000 pounds, a 21% increase. According to the ASET website, such a change would increase efficiency and decrease pollution.

As reported by the Washington Post (the articles are reprinted at the ASET website), the idea is opposed by certain key members of the Senate who quickly introduced legislation to prevent any increase of the weight limit, claiming that heavier trucks take longer to stop, cause more damage to public roads, and are more inclined to cause roll-over accidents. (This legislation, the Safe Truck Operations and Preservation Act, may be viewed at the Library of Congress website by searching for S3021.) These concerns are shared by truck safety advocacy groups such as Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety which outlines the dangers of heavier trucks in a “Fact Sheet” here.

Commercial truck drivers are subject to periodic drug and alcohol testing. A commercial truck driver is not permitted to drive with a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of greater than .02. Drivers testing at this level are not permitted to perform “safety-sensitive functions”, which includes driving, for at least 24 hours after the test. A driver whose BAC exceeds .04 may not return to duty without submitting to further testing. Drivers are also tested for marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, and PCP.

On May 15, 2008, the General Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report recommending improvements in the enforcement of drug and alcohol safety rules regulating the trucking industry. The GAO notes that this is an important issue of public safety: previous studies have found that driving under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or both can increase the risk of truck crashes anywhere from two-to six-fold.

Some key findings of the GAO study are: 1) many carriers, especially new one, have no drug testing program at all; 2) drug users may avoid detection by “adulterating or substituting their urine specimens with products that are widely available and marketed as allowing drivers to ‘beat’ the test;” and 3) drivers who test positive may continue to drive by hopping from one job to the next. Perhaps most tellingly, the GAO concluded that the FMCSA is able to conduct, on average, only 13,000 compliance reviews annually even though there are over 700,000 carriers registered with the Department of Transportation.

The GAO’s report calls for the Secretary of Transportation to expedite improving safety audits and to implement a national database of drug testing information. The GAO also suggests that Congress consider (1) adopting legislation to ban “subversion products” used to “beat” drug testing, (2) providing FMCSA with additional authority over entities involved in the drug testing process, and (3) encouraging or requiring states to suspend commercial driver’s licenses of drivers who fail or refuse to take a drug test.

The full report of the GAO may be found here.

The regulations designed to prevent commercial truck drivers from becoming too tired to drive safely are only effective if they are enforceable. Most drivers are paid by the mile. As a result, the incentive to break the hours of service rules is built into the system — sometimes with tragic results.

The rules impose daily and weekly limits on the number of hours commercial truck drivers are permitted to work.  Generally, drivers are permitted to work no more than 14 consecutive hours. Of that time, only 11 hours may be devoted to driving. (The remaining time may be devoted to paperwork, loading and unloading, etc.) After exhausting these limits, drivers are required to spend a minimum of 10 consecutive hours off duty. The regulations also prohibit driving after being on-duty more than 60 hours in 7 consecutive days, or 70 hours in 8 consecutive days. Drivers may restart the 60 or 70 hour clock by taking no less than 34 consecutive hours off duty.

To assist in enforcing these regulations, drivers must record their status throughout the day as either “off-duty”, “sleeper berth”, “on duty, not driving”, or “driving.” There is concern, however, that some drivers may falsify their driver logs to circumvent the rules.

In 2004, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) proposed a rule to make it easier to verify that drivers follow the rules. The proposed rules required drivers to maintain “supporting documents” to verify the entries recorded in the driver’s log. In response to the proposed rule, however, the FMCSA received a large number of negative comments, mostly from within the trucking industry. As a result, the FMCSA withdrew the proposed rule as of October 25, 2007. For now, compliance with the federal hours of service regulations will remain frustratingly difficult to verify.

You can review the proposed rule, the public comments, and the withdraw of the rule by searching for Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 2126-AA76 at http://www.regulations.gov/.

In the commercial trucking industry, there is always tension between highway safety and making money. The on-going debate about changes to the Hours of Service regulations show the kind of compromises made to accommodate these competing interests. (For an introduction to the Hours of Service regulations, see our previous post.)

In 1995, Congress ordered the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) to revise the Hours of Service regulations, the rules governing how long truck drivers may work before resting. The job fell to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) when that agency was created in 1999.

In May 2000, the FMCSA proposed new rules and invited public comment. The final rule adopted in April 2003, however, diluted the safety protections afforded in the proposed rules. The changes to the final regulations lead consumer safety advocates to challenge the new rule in Court. In its decision invalidating the new rule, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia criticized the rule changes as “arbitrary and capricious.” (The Truck Safety Coalition describes the unsafe features of the new regulations here.) The Court criticized the new rule for, among other things, increasing from 10 to 11 the number of consecutive hours drivers may drive before resting and for failing to require the use of electronic on-board recording devices to assure compliance with the rules despite evidence that these changes may be detrimental to public safety.

In July 2004, Congress temporarily rescued the new regulation by allowing it to become effective until the FMSCA considered and addressed the federal Court’s criticisms. In August 2005, FMSCA did just that by promulgating virtually the identical rule all over again. This time, FMSCA simply supported the changes with additional research and written findings.

Consumer advocacy groups again challenged the regulation in Court, claiming that the changes were detrimental to public safety. In its July 2007 Opinion, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals again invalidated portions of the new regulations, essentially finding that the FMSCA failed to publicly disclose its methodology in studying the new rules in time to allow public comment as required by law.

As recently as December 2007, the U.S. Senate held hearings about the new Hours of Service regulations. (These hearing can by viewed at C-Span website.) The debate, as it has for more than a decade, centered around the competition between public safety and trucking company profits. That debate, no doubt, will continue for years to come.

Commercial truck drivers work long hours under physically demanding conditions. Ensuring that drivers get enough rest is a critical component of truck safety. That is the purpose of the federal Hours of Service regulations.

Commercial truckers transporting property (the rules for passenger trucks are a bit different) are subject to daily and weekly limits on the number of hours they are permitted to work.  Generally, drivers are permitted to work no more than 14 consecutive hours. Of that time, only 11 hours may be devoted to driving. (The remaining time may be devoted to paperwork, loading and unloading, etc.) After exhausting these limits, drivers are required to spend a minimum of 10 consecutive hours off duty.

Drivers are subject to weekly limits as well. The regulations prohibit driving after the driver has been on-duty 60 hours in 7 consecutive days, or 70 hours in 8 consecutive days. Drivers may restart the 60 or 70 hour clock by taking no less than 34 consecutive hours off duty.

Drivers must record their status throughout the day as either “off-duty”, “sleeper berth”, “on duty, not driving”, or “driving.” An example of a completed log book is provided by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration here.

In truck crash litigation, it is important to study the driver’s logbook, but that is only a first step. The Hours of Service regulations are well known in the trucking industry, and commercial truck drivers will rarely confess to a violation in the log book. The possibility of falsified log books must always be considered. Log book entries should be compared to other evidence including receipts for fuel and food, credit card statements, cell phone records, bills of lading and other shipping records, loading dock security logs and servailance tapes, and GPS tracking data. A determination about whether a trucking crash was caused by a violation of the Hours of Service rules can be made only after all of the evidence has been considered.

In July 2007, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) published the results of its 2005 Drug and Alcohol Survey. A commercial truck driver is in violation of  FMCSA regulations when the BAC is greater than .02. Drivers testing at this level are not permitted to perform “safety-sensitive functions”, which includes driving, for at least 24 hours. A driver whose BAC exceeds .04 may not return to duty without submitting to further testing. Drivers are also tested for marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, and PCP.

The FMCSA reviewed the results of random drug and alcohol tests performed in 2005 of 117,000 truck drivers. Of that number, 1.7 percent failed the test for controlled substances and .2% failed the alcohol test. These results are simliar to the results reported for 2002 through 2004. Based on this information, the FMCSA will continue to require 50% of commercial truck drivers to undergo random drug testing and 10% to undergo testing for alcohol.

A summary of this survey may be found at the FMCSA website.