• About CVSA
• Members
• Committees
• Programs
• News
• Events
• Store
• Contact Us

Email Subscriptions

Sign up to receive email notifications on information important to you.

	Events		Podcasts
	Guardian		Products
	News (Press Releases, Legislative Updates, and Member News)

Reauthorization Policy Positions

 

Between the long stretches of pavement that make up our highway system lies a line; a mark that guides and informs roadway users. For more than 25 years, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) has been leading people along that line, promoting highway safety by ensuring commercial motor vehicles that travel alongside other roadway users do so safety and securely. CVSA does this by providing leadership and direction to enforcement, industry and legislative policy makers, as well as in the development of standards and best practices.

There are many paths to a destination, but when it comes to preventing injuries and deaths, there are no short cuts … There are, however, more direct routes to solving the challenges of improving highway safety. While members of Congress work through the DOT reauthorization process, CVSA has developed and is promoting our preferred route to safety.

 

Issue #1: FLEXIBILITY IN STATE GRANT PROGRAMS

Anyone who has worked in a large bureaucracy knows the term "stovepipe;" that is, too many people working independently of one another. Unfortunately, rarely does anything substantive gets accomplished in  this way. It creates a no way out situation for productive ideas and results. Today, a lot of time is wasted applying for and administering the eleven existing state MC safety grant programs and the timeframe for the use of the money, in many cases, is too short. CVSA believes that the federal government should consolidate and reconfigure the existing takedowns of the MCSAP and the remaining state grant programs into the following programs:

• Enforcement
• Education
• Incentive
• Technology
• Driver

CVSA also believes that Congress should:

• Increase the total funding to $340 million from $300 million and change the matching requirements from 80/20 to 90/10 except for education and incentive grants which should be funded at 100 percent;
• Revamp the performance incentive grant so that it rewards grant recipients for performance in quantity, quality and timeliness of work as well as for innovative and new approaches to safety;
• Fund the New Entrant Grant ($29 million annually) through the establishment of a new carrier registration fee; and, 
• Change the annual grant period from one to three years and start the clock on the day the state/recipient actually receives the funding.

For more information on this policy issue, click here.

 

ISSUE #2: ESTABLISH A MORE EFFECTIVE COMPLIANCE REVIEW PROCESS

The Compliance Review (CR) is one of the four main components of FMCSA’s safety oversight system. CRs, while an effective tool, are time consuming, and in some cases, an inefficient process for evaluating a motor carrier’s safety fitness. In addition, maximum civil penalties are too low; and in many instances, are not levied until a motor carrier commits a major violation for the third time. A significant piece of the solution should be to provide the authority to create a streamlined CR that targets and assesses specific problem areas of a carrier (along the lines of what has been proposed by FMCSA in CSA 2010).

• This approach should be an additional tool rather than replace the current CR; 
• Fine schedules in Appendix A and B to Part 386 of the FMCSR should be increased; 
• When penalty determinations are being made, the ability to pay factor should not be considered; 
• Maximum fines should be levied on the second major violation; and,
• Encourage and incent carriers to undergo third party evaluations outside the normal enforcement process by considering them in a carrier's safety fitness determination and/or as part of the federal and or state carrier selection process for reviews.

For more information on this policy issue, click here.

 

ISSUE #3: EXEMPTIONS FROM FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS

We teach our children at an early age to play by the rules and you will be safe. But a growing number of "players" in the trucking industry (i.e. agricultural operators, utility service operators) believe rules should not apply to them. Unlike motor carriers that haul everything from trash to hazardous materials, for operators of some large trucks the rules don't apply. Exemptions and exceptions are becoming too commonplace and, as a result, safety has been compromised. Today, there are exemptions from motor carrier safety regulations at federal and state levels which have seriously eroded uniformity and negatively impacted safety. It also has weakened enforcement efforts at the roadside and increased the risk for crashes and fatalities. No one wants that. But, the problem is that many of the groups who have won these exemptions claim they are not in the transportation business of hauling long distances. The question is: if they drive the same trucks on the same roads, shouldn’t they follow the same safety rules as everyone else? CVSA believes they should.

To alleviate this CVSA recommends:

• Sunset the existing interstate exemptions to a future date with the requirement that they be re-applied for through the federal regulatory process outlined in Title 49, Section 31315 of the U.S. Code; 
• Establishing and nationally applying a standard baseline exemption (during the reapplication process, if FMCSA determined that an exemption is warranted and does not compromise safety) for that specific industry segment/sector;
• Encouraging states to adopt a similar process with respect to intrastate exemptions; 
• Having FMCSA review its 1988 state tolerance guidelines and strictly adhere to the state compatibility principle; and,
• Not pre-empting states from adopting safety standards that are stricter than those at the federal level.

For more information on this policy issue, click here.

 

ISSUE #4: LACK OF UNIFORMITY IN REGULATIONS AFFECTING INTER AND INTRASTATE OPERATIONS

A truck is a truck and a bus is a bus no matter what road it drives on. If an innocent bystander is hit by a truck or a bus they don't differentiate whether it is an inter- or intrastate movement. So why don’t the same safety standards apply? Making distinctions between inter- and intrastate operations has resulted in a complicated web of applicable regulations, exemptions and inconsistent enforcement practices. The result has been a clouded safety fitness picture of motor carriers. Safety knows no politics. CVSA recommends:

• Eliminating the distinction between inter and intrastate commerce;
• Adopting uniform definitions at a minimum for motor carriers, commercial motor vehicles, and commercial drivers for safety regulations and the collection of crash data; 
  Issuing US DOT numbers to intrastate carriers by each state; 
• Having FMCSA take enforcement action against intrastate carriers as well as states being able to take enforcement action on interstate motor carriers; 
• With the assistance of FMCSA, states should implement programs to track the safety performance of non-conforming carriers that are subject to different safety regulations due to statutory or regulatory exemptions from the FMCSRs; 
• FMCSA should review 20 percent of its entire body of regulations in the FMCSRs per year and remove those that are no longer relevant and update those that are dated.

For more information on this policy issue, click here.

 

ISSUE #5: MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT FORMULA REVISION

Safety is a team effort and takes many players to achieve a goal. Like in any sport, if the team accomplishes a goal, does it really matter who gets credit (or pays for it)? If the task is to get the job done, the current Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirements related to FMCSA's state grant programs do not accurately reflect goals since it is input and funding based. Consequently, in many cases the result is a disincentive for states to invest more in innovative motor carrier safety programs. CVSA recommends:

• If not eliminated altogether, the MOE should be reconfigured along functional and performance-based lines and returned to a fixed period of time rather than the current rolling one; 
• Implement a customizable framework for each state based upon the types and amounts of activities performed and the total number of people used to execute these duties;
• Have states determine the number of people used to execute the four main components of the MCSAP (driver/vehicle inspections, traffic enforcement, new entrant audits and compliance reviews) as well as the volume of work produced by each person. Figures would be developed at the beginning of each year as a part of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Planning process and then trued up at the end of the year to reflect actual versus planned activity per person; FMCSA would determine a baseline performance figure that states would be responsible for meeting annually.

For more information on this policy issue, click here.

 

ISSUE #6: NEW ENTRANTS

Anyone who has a teenager knows how valuable driver education programs are in educating them about safe driving and the rules of the road -- the same goes for the New Entrant program for motor carriers. It proactively addresses safety and defensive operating skills. States view the program as valuable and want additional funds to improve their new entrant interstate program as well as to be able to expand it to cover activities relative to intrastate new entrants. CVSA recommends:

• The new entrant program should be made to pay for itself by charging new entrants a fee to cover the cost of a safety audit (estimated at $600 per carrier in 2006 dollars) and should be indexed to keep pace with inflation; 
• The existing $29 million in MCSAP takedown should be put back into the MCSAP program to assist with enabling a more flexible grant structure and enhanced incentive program; 
• Funds should be dispersed to states according to their level of effort expended for new entrant audits, educational programs and increased enforcement efforts; and,
• Funding should be maintained at 100 percent and eligible expenses should include not just the safety audits but also education and awareness activities, materials and training.

For more information on this policy issue, click here.

 

ISSUE #7: ESTABLISH A SINGLE POINT OF CARRIER REGISTRATION, CREDENTIALING AND SAFETY DATA ACCESS

Unfortunately there are bad actors out there who know the system and how to avoid the law. Coupled with the fact that there are at least six different credentialing and registration processes at the federal level for motor carriers, not to mention various intrastate permits and authorities (UCR, US DOT#, Operating Authority, Hazmat Permit, Proof of Insurance, IFTA, IRP), it is easy for problem actors to slip under the radar screen. There is minimal coordination between these systems resulting in inconsistencies in the data gathered resulting in confusion and problems enforcing the various safety, permitting and insurance rules and regulations. The last ten years has seen tremendous growth in technology development and deployment and the government needs to keep pace by establishing a web portal within FMCSA that combines the common data elements from each of the six programs; The portal should not pre-empt existing programs nor should it replace the programmatic responsibility or data systems used for each. Rather, it should serve as a central location that the authoritative systems should be required to utilize to ensure that common data elements such as carrier names and addresses of record are the same from one system to the next; An administrative fee should be established to build, use, staff and maintain the portal; and, Authority for such a system likely already exists in language adopted in SAFETEA-LU under the Unified Carrier Registration System provisions, but additional authority may be needed.

For more information on this policy issue, click here.

 

ISSUE #8: DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING

Just like the bad actors (companies who know how to slip between the cracks), there too are commercial vehicle drivers who know a thing or two about hiding in the shadows. A well-known loophole in the federal drug and alcohol testing requirements is being exploited by some commercial drivers. When a driver moves from one trucking company to another, "positive" drug and alcohol test results may not always be discovered by the hiring company since these results are self-reported and not centrally tracked. CVSA recommends:

• Establishing a national drug and alcohol testing clearinghouse; 
• Providing for the ability to close down fraudulent drug testing laboratories; 
• Providing appropriate privacy safeguards for drivers and ensuring there are appeal rights prior to making information public; 
• Ensuring there are strict access controls for authorized users; and,
• Concurrent with the establishment of a testing clearinghouse, establish the national registry of certified medical examiners to help oversee and track medical practitioners who determine physical qualifications of drivers.

For more information on this policy issue, click here.

 

ISSUE #9: OUTREACH

Education and outreach efforts are important in addressing safety problems and creating a safety conscious culture. CVSA Recommends:

• Funding provided to states for education and outreach should be expanded over and above the basic safety grant programs to ensure basic compliance and enforcement strategies and personnel are not impacted negatively; 
• Funding should remain at 100 percent and states should be encouraged to undertake new and innovative outreach and awareness initiatives.

For more information on this policy issue, click here.

 

ISSUE #10: BUS and MOTORCOACH SAFETY

A number of high-profile bus and motorcoach fires and crashes in the last few years have brought the issue of bus and motorcoach safety to the forefront. Investigations into these recent crashes have revealed that there are a number of problems surfacing. As an example, a company may have been placed out of service on one day and began operations the next day as a different company. These “Chameleon” carriers are not specific to the motorcoach industry, but they have shown up as a critical issue. It is clear that there are a variety of safety and compliance problems throughout the industry that are in need of more focus and attention. Stronger safety, compliance and enforcement measures should be enacted to help enhance the safety of motorcoach, bus and curbside operations, but what is the best and most efficient mechanism(s) for doing so? Here are CVSA’s recommendations:

Solutions

• The provision in SAFETEA-LU prohibiting inspections to be conducted roadside is overly restrictive and needs to be revisited.
• The New Jersey Bus Crash Study should be looked to as helping to provide some measure of information that can be helpful to both state and federal enforcement authorities, as well as the Congress in strengthening bus and motorcoach safety programs.
• Prior to issuing registration and operating authority to a passenger carrying motor carrier, legislation should be enacted to ensure the motor carrier is properly vetted and is in compliance with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and is not a “Chameleon” Carrier.
• Passing of the New Entrant Safety Audit should be required as a condition of the carrier being issued their DOT registration/operating authority. As a part of the New Entrant requirements, consideration should be given to enacting minimum training standards for drivers as well as critical passenger motor carrier safety personnel.
• There needs to be stronger safety regulation on school buses used for charter transportation (and school transportation) as well as public transit buses used in charter transportation.
• Brokers of passenger transportation services need to be regulated and subject to the same regulatory regime as are freight forwarders are for the trucking industry. There needs to be appropriate penalty provisions and enforcement oversight on brokers who fail to comply or who are negligent in their duties/responsibilities.
• New legislation should provide parameters in terms of what areas need to be focused on to enhance bus, motorcoach and curbside operator safety, but it should not necessarily identify specific operational measures to be taken.
• Part 350 of the FMCSR should provide more specifics in terms of what activities are eligible under the MCSAP for motorcoach compliance and enforcement programs, as well as what elements should be contained in a state’s CVSP.
• Both through the legislative and regulatory efforts, consideration should be given to the standards and regulations on the books in Canada – in an attempt to harmonize regulations and incorporate best practices for compliance and enforcement.
• Safety belts should be required on all school buses and motorcoaches.
• Require Electronic On Board Recording devices (EOBRs) for maintain and monitoring motorcoach driver hours of service compliance.
• Occupant protection and crashworthiness and avoidance standards need to be pursued for items like window glazing to minimize ejection through portals in the roof or sides of the vehicle, fire prevention and suppression systems, roof strength and crush resistance, collision warning systems, rollover stability systems, lane departure warning systems and brake stroke monitoring systems.
• Legislation should be supported that provide immediate incentives for carriers to purchase advanced onboard safety systems through tax credits. HR 3820 and Senate Bill 3420 provide this opportunity. Consideration should also be given to providing tax incentives/credits for fire-suppression systems (possibly H.R. 1135 as a legislative vehicle)
• Windshield mounted video monitoring systems that help assist with driver/operator safety need to be able to be installed in a fashion that do not impede the driver’s ability to perform.
• The “Camioneta” population (9-15 passenger vehicles and motor carriers) needs to be subject to a much stronger regulatory framework.
• Standards with respect to passenger carrying driver licensing, testing, training and certification need to be revisited and likely strengthened to make sure they are appropriate and effective.
• All school buses and motorcoaches should be required to undergo periodic inspections (at least once annually) in accordance with Part 396 of the FMCSR, and each state should be required to have an inspection infrastructure/program to support, deliver and oversee these inspections.

For more information on this policy issue, click here.

 

ISSUE #11: TAX INCENTIVE SUPPORTING ADVANCED SAFETY TECHNOLOGIES IN CMVS

 

CVSA actively supports legislation recently re-introduced that aims to significantly reduce commercial vehicle crashes and save lives. The Commercial Motor Vehicle Advanced Safety Technology Tax Act of 2009 (H.R. 2024) has been re-introduced in the House by Reps. Mike Thompson (D-CA) and Geoff Davis (R-KY). It provides tax credits to help facilitate the accelerated adoption of advanced safety systems for commercial vehicles. Those systems included in the bill are: electronic brake stroke monitoring systems; vehicle stability systems; lane departure warning systems; and, collision warning systems.

It is expected that Sens. Stabenow (D-MI) and Voinovich (R-OH) will soon re-introduce the legislation in the Senate.

An economic and market analysis of the legislation has been completed and will soon be available. The information in this analysis covers issues that are generally considered by the Joint Committee on Taxation when it is requested to “score” the bill to determine the revenue impact on the federal budget, in this case, the Highway Trust Fund.

CVSA believes this bill is the right thing to do. It is about encouraging investment in safety through the purchase and installation of technologies on trucks and buses that have been tested and proven to work. It will certainly help reduce heavy truck fatalities which have been hovering around 5000 per year for the last 10 years. Specifically, the bill provides tax credits for four safety technologies identified by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMSCA) in its recent Large Truck Crash Causation Study. The four identified technologies that would help reduce truck crashes and fatalities are: collision avoidance, lane departure warning, stability control, and brake stroke monitoring systems. The tax credit would be equal to 50 percent of the cost of a qualified system, up to $1500; allow a total credit of up to $3500 per vehicle; limit the qualifying taxpayer to a maximum credit to $350,000 per taxable year; and extend credit eligibility for the purchase of school busses, intercity buses and vehicles used in commerce. The Bill's approach also has received support from the FMSCA and National Transportation Safety Board. In testimony in 2008 before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, NTSB Chairman Mark Rosenker said the quickest way to promote widespread use of motor vehicle safety technologies was through the tax incentive approach. Former FMCSA Administrator John Hill in a variety of public comments has also been a proponent of tax incentives as an effective way to accelerate the widespread use of new safety technologies.

 

ISSUE #12: TRUCK SIZE & WEIGHT

 

The transportation world has experienced significant growth and changes in everything from freight traffic, freight characteristics and movement patterns, just-in-time delivery, global economics and trade, intermodalism, economic deregulation, enhanced safety and enforcement programs and truck equipment advances to name just a few. Yet despite the many changes in freight movement related to truck size and weight, there has been no significant change in federal size and weight law in nearly three decades. The problem that exists today is due to decades of “patchwork” attempts to modify regulations, exemptions and permit programs the result has been challenges for enforcement as well as for industry to maintain compliance. One of the largest challenges with existing truck size and weight policies and regulations is the lack of uniformity from state to state, and sometimes even within states.

• From 2006 through 2008, there were 911,101 commercial vehicle size and weight violations cited by roadside inspectors. These data were for those situations where a driver/vehicle inspection report was completed and uploaded to the MCMIS database. This number represents 13.41% of the total number of violations cited during driver inspections over this time period and ranks number 2 on the list in terms of the most often cited violations.

 

It is clear that we need a more comprehensive approach in the United States to truck size and weight policy since the laws have not kept pace.

CVSA advocates the need for a stronger federal role in facilitating a framework for research, policy and performance based regulations and the enforcement for truck size & weight operations on the Interstate portion of the National Highway System. CVSA does not support enacting any significant legislative or regulatory changes to truck size and weight until such time as we have a more uniform, methodical and science-based approach to evaluating the safety, infrastructure and environmental costs and benefits.

In addition, the U.S. DOT needs to evaluate and determine the safety nexus to truck size and weight. Having this will help the state enforcement agencies make their case for receiving their full measure of support and resources (state and federal funding) from the state Departments of Transportation to carry out their enforcement efforts. While a number of state enforcement agencies do receive the FHWA funding and support through their state DOTs for this effort, others have difficulty in making the necessary agency linkages for such funding support. As a final point related to resource issues, one of the major cost items for size and weight enforcement is labor. We are hopeful that as efforts move ahead to reauthorize the federal truck size and weight program that this will be taken into consideration concerning the state enforcement agency’s funding needs.

We MUST gain a better understanding of the true impacts that truck size and weight have to all aspects of our transportation system. We also need to further examine the various oversize/overweight exemptions and permit programs to evaluate their costs and benefits. The more variety there is in regulations and permit programs, the more difficult the task for enforcement to monitor compliance, initiate effective enforcement actions and levy appropriate sanctions.

For more information on this policy issue, click here.