trucking legislation

Obstacles Continue As Trucking Companies Work to Purge Banned Tech

June 20, 2021 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

All companies and truckers working in business with the federal government, through a provision in Section 889 of the 2019 fiscal defense authorization bill, must purge all implemented technology systems made by five specific Chinese technology providers that have recently been prohibited.

These five Chinese tech companies–Dahua Technology, Hikvision, Huawei Technologies Co., Hytera, and ZTE Corp., were found to be potential U.S. intelligence and defense agency information system hackers.

A majority of federal government-collaborating companies have been doing what they can to remove this technology from their fleets, but there has been a plethora of difficulties in accurately identifying the 300 different subsidiaries and affiliates of these Chinese companies that were originally identified by one particular data security branch.

The items that need immediate removal include: cell phones, computers, GPS products, cameras, computer routes, and other onboard truck technologies, and companies which don’t comply with the purge requirement may lose their government contracts.

“Part of the problem is that it’s not always crystal clear exactly what to do, or what products you have to avoid in order to be compliant,” noted a Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary P.C. transportation regulatory specialist.

Because identifying all particular aspects of technology needing purging isn’t as easy as it should be, trucking companies have had to use their own discernment to the best of their abilities.

“So, it becomes partly a matter of judgment,” the specialist continued. “It’s plain to say that carriers doing business with the government that I have spoken to have all taken substantial efforts to be in compliance.”

Indeed, industry executives have been working together to find the best ways to find the subsidiaries and affiliates of these Chinese technology companies, and the obstacles of such efforts were even recently discussed during a May freight conference, according to first vice chairman of ATA’s Government Freight Conference and president of Bennett Motor Express, Charles Phillips.

“It would be nice to have a government repository that would allow motor carriers to go into and see all the subsidiaries and other companies that carriers can’t buy from,” explained Phillips, who also noted that the current regulation does not explicitly outline the Chinese companies’ subsidiaries. “We talked about pursuing the government for a repository. It’s on our docket to work toward [this].”

In relation to the five Chinese companies, agentless device security platform Armis was able to find 291 specific affiliates when the regulation first came into effect.

“The release of the Federal Acquisition Regulation Ban 889 has impacted many organizations, gaining visibility at the board level,” said Armis in a statement. The company also explained that when the ban was first released, it identified two particularly pressing problems: How would trucking companies be able to efficiently find the devices affected by the mandate, and what was the best way of complying with the government’s request while also not hurting their business models and customer service capabilities?

“The biggest issue has been one of identification of devices across the entire enterprise, and this does include devices manufactured by the subsidiaries as well,” added Susan Torrey, a spokeswoman for Armis. “We at Armis performed a deeper analysis to gain a better understanding of the five vendors and also identified 291 subsidiaries as part of that research.”

It was also important to Armis to find ways of staying in communication about these efforts with their customers as much as possible.

“[Our analysis] includes having risk factors that can identify the specific manufacturers flagged by the U.S. government and alerting customers to their presence, so they can take appropriate action to remediate and demonstrate compliance,” said Torrey.

According to the National Defense Transportation Association, this regulation comes from the 2019 Worldwide Threat Assessment of the Intelligence Community and the U.S. National Counterintelligence and Security Center.

“Chinese intelligence and security services may use Chinese information technology firms and their equipment as routine and systemic espionage platforms,” said the association on its website. “The increasing reliance on foreign-owned or controlled equipment and services, and reliance on those that present national security concerns, creates vulnerabilities in U.S. supply chains.”

Tensions Rise as White House and GOP Struggle to Reach Infrastructure Bill Agreement

June 18, 2021 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

The Biden Administration is making efforts to work with Republican Senators–who have made known the little wiggle-room they have in regards to their $568 billion proposal–with the goal to come to some bipartisan conclusion surrounding President Biden’s $2.25 trillion infrastructure plans.

Democrats have expressed worries that the amount of time for both parties to finally reach an agreement is coming to an end. However, Republicans have noted that they have in fact raised the number in their plan and have also tried to cooperate with the White House.

“Productive conversations” have been in the works, according to White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, and senators were expected to work toward a constructive conclusion alongside White House officials Louisa Terrell, head of legislative affairs, and Steve RIcchetti, senior adviser.

“We’re looking forward to constructive conversations,” Psaki added.

Biden, who has been prioritizing a comprehensive infrastructure plan and has stated his goal to “build back better” in his pledge to help boost the economy following the COVID-19 pandemic era, has been looking to Republicans for cooperation in regards to a bipartisan method of reaching these goals. Because majorities in the House and Senate are Democrats, Biden has sought Republican support instead of solely leaning on his party.

However, Republicans are strongly opposing the corporate tax hike that would come with Biden’s funding plan.

“If they’re willing to settle on targeting an infrastructure bill without revisiting the 2017 tax bill, we’ll work with them,” said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell in relation to collaborating with Democrats on the issue. Still, though, McConnell noted that a $2 trillion–or larger–package “is not going to have any Republican support.”

This comes while Republicans are clamoring to hold onto the 2017 tax reductions they accomplished during Donald Trump’s presidency, when they brought corporate tax rates down from 35% to 21%. According to McConnell, raising taxes on wealthy Americans or on corporations is never going to receive any backing from Republicans.

As of now, Biden plans to raise corporate taxes back up to 28%.

Because Biden has proposed the two parties find ways to negotiate, Republicans met with White House-dispatched transportation and commerce secretaries in late May to discuss recently-requested additional details on Republicans’ plan for the package. West Virginia Senator Shelley Moore Capito said she felt good about these discussions and planned to hear back from the White House sooner than later.

Still, though, following the White House and Republican meeting which took place just weeks ago, there was “not a significantly changed offer.”

Regardless, Biden has been faring well in the party-to-party discussions, and has not given up on efforts to reach a bipartisan agreement–even though Republicans’ counter offer had no change from their proposal of $568 billion. It does seem, though, that optimism from some of the GOP’s negotiators, such as Capito, has encouraged White House officials.

In regards to possible strategies that have been brought to light, one includes Biden coming to terms with a much more limited road, highway, bridge, and broadband infrastructure bill that would have the potential to please both parties–likely leaning more towards Republicans’ wishes. If this were to take place, Democrats would need to independently focus on climate change proposals and investments pertaining to education, hospitals, and child care.

Some Republicans have suggested dipping into unused coronavirus aid package funds to allocate toward potential infrastructure projects, with further funding coming from public-private partnerships or uncollected tax revenue.

However, a solely infrastructure-based bipartisan proposal, which would consist of far fewer funds than those which Biden has proposed, could mean many Democrats would withdraw their support while under the impression that Biden missed this major opportunity to set forth heavily innovative, transformative, and community-minded legislation.

Biden surely knows this and will likely do what he can to ensure climate change-fighting funds are included in the deal. But, as of now, the two parties have not little-to-no progress in reaching an agreement as both are holding strong to their two differing ideas about the size of the infrastructure package and how to acquire the funding necessary to see it through.

New Surface Transportation Bill Introduced by Republicans

June 16, 2021 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

The Surface Transportation Advanced Through Reform, Technology, and Efficient Review (STARTER) Act 2.0 is likely to replace an expiring highway law. This legislation would allocate $400 billion over five years for surface transportation programs.

On May 19th, Republican lawmakers released the outline of the bill, which would implement or extend programs for the trucking industry, autonomous technology, self-driving vehicles, and overall highway funding.

The bill would also work to make the process easier in regards to federal environmental permitting as part of the surface transportation proposal backed by Democrats. Such a highway policy bill aligns with the infrastructure-related plans of the Biden Administration, and the House transportation panel’s Democrats are likely to assess their version of the bill by the end of May.

“Our bill focuses on the core infrastructure that helps move people and goods through our communities every single day, cuts red tape that holds up project construction, and gets resources into the hands of our states and locals with as few strings attached as possible,” explained chief sponsor of the bill, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee ranking member Sam Graves of Missouri.

Many supporters of the bill have noted its capacity to draw backing from both parties.

“As the process for considering legislation on infrastructure moves forward, I am eager to see these proposals become part of a robust bipartisan effort, just as the president continues to call for,” Graves added.

The measure also aims to set forth an efficient infrastructure grants program, as well as mandate that organizations create an environmental review permitting timetable. It would also work toward updating the current national highway freight plan.

“Streaming the federal permitting and environmental review process absolutely must be a part of an infrastructure package,” Rodney Davis, ranking member of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee, noted.

For states looking to find ways to fully optimize truck parking capabilities, the bill could also boost the resources available. Additionally, it could also implement an interstate driving training program for commercial driver’s license holders between the ages of 18 and 20–an initiative that would also create higher standards for carriers’ best practices.

For livestock haulers and farm operations, this legislation would also be able to increase hours-of-service regulation flexibility and allocate specific funding solely to programs based in rural regions.

To do this, the bill “provides greater flexibility and supports greater mobility in rural areas by increasing the federal share of project costs for projects located in qualified opportunity zones, in medically underserved areas, or areas with medically underserved populations,” explaining a summary of the measure.

Through this legislation, the Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-Saving Transportation (PROTECT) grant program regarding the aid of areas affected by natural disasters would come into play, as would a nationwide vehicle-miles-traveled fee system and a connected vehicle applications-based competitive grant program.

“This legislation puts true transportation infrastructure first and prioritizes building a resilient transit system,” explained co-sponsor of the bill and ranking member of the Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee, Rick Crawford of Arkansas.

For committee chairman Peter DeFazio, the ideal version of the legislation would set forth mobility grid upgrades–especially in regards to transit systems. For his five-year 2015 highway law update, DeFazio recommends $100 billion for transit state-of-good repair criteria needing attention.

“America is facing serious challenges: crumbling infrastructure, the threat of climate change, inequality and racial justice, a rising China that threatens our domestic workforce and manufacturing,” he explained. “We can’t solve these problems by doing the status quo.”

Still, Republicans want to focus on surface transportation policies and have been collaborating with the White House to determine the best courses of actions in regards to funding and infrastructure policy negotiations.

“We believe we can find a bipartisan deal on infrastructure,” said President Biden. “But we’ve made one thing clear: We’ll compromise, but doing nothing is not an option.”

Senate Republicans recently released their strategy which would center upon a $600 billion policy plan, while Biden’s plan requests $2.25 trillion and aims to do acquire such funding by boosting corporate taxes.

Surface Transportation, DRIVE-Safe, Truck Parking Bill Support Requested by ATA’s Chris Spear

June 14, 2021 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

“America’s supply chain yields tremendous potential,” said American Trucking Associations President Chris Spear during a hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee earlier this month. “It’s a catalyst for economic growth, beyond that of any other nation. For that to happen, however, I ask this committee to consider four key elements that both feed and benefit our nation’s supply chain: infrastructure, safety, workforce development, and environmental stewardship. Together, these elements shape and define the resiliency of our supply chain.”

Spear has also made known his belief that new legislation allowing commercial truck drivers under 21 years old to work across state lines is especially necessary at this time. Spear argues that this legislation would be incredibly beneficial to the nation’s supply chain and that it would help solve the long-term challenges surrounding the current driver shortage still intact throughout the trucking industry.

The trucking sector has been working to push forward a bill to secure long-term highway program funding and to ensure improved commercial corridor connectivity capabilities, as well.

“Stop blaming each other for the things you don’t do and start taking credit for the things you should do,” said Spear in an effort to highlight the current bipartisan efforts taking place in relation to boosted infrastructure upgrade funding and enhanced operation technology. “These investments are long overdue. They are the things Americans–your constituents–need, use, and rely on every single day. They’ll be grateful.”

Truck drivers clearly carried the nation’s economic health on its back during the coronavirus pandemic by ensuring grocery stores and hospitals stayed stocked with the supplies they needed, and many policymakers at both the state and federal levels have recognized these efforts. Still, though, truck drivers will continue to be the country’s most prominent freight transporters, with the trucking industry likely to ship around 70% of America’s freight throughout the next year. Trucks are also likely to move around 2.4 billion tons of more freight over the next decade than they have in recent years, according to ATA.

Now, a shortage of automobile sector-used semiconductor chips and disruptions in refined petroleum distribution have caused the nation’s supply chain to face a variety of obstacles as it works to keep shipments running smoothly during this time of boosted e-commerce.

“Without trucks, our cities, towns, and communities would fail to thrive, and would lack essential necessities such as food and drinking water. There would be no clothes to purchase, nor parts to build automobiles or fuel to power them [without trucks],” Spear lamented when he urged lawmakers to pass bipartisan surface transportation infrastructure policies for 2021.

Because the current driver shortage is also likely to not only continue but to grow as more truckers reach retirement age (and as e-commerce continues to boom), the trucking industry must hire an additional 1.1. million new truck drivers over the next ten years (around 110,000 each year).

At the recent hearing, Spear discussed the Developing Responsible Individuals for a Vibrant Economy (DRIVE)-Safe Act, which would allow truckers younger than the age of 21 to cross state lines while operating their commercial vehicles–an effort that is believed to be able to ease the difficulty of the shortage.

This program would permit under-21-year-old commercial driver license holders to work within interstate commerce, and DRIVE-Safe Act co-sponsors also touted the benefits of this measure during the meeting.

“This shortage directly impacts the supply chain of goods,” said Senator Rick Scott of Florida. “It causes delays for the manufacturers, consumers, and corporations across the U.S.”

Another major issue that was a topic of the discussion–truck parking access. The recent Truck Parking Safety Improvement Act will allocate U.S. Department of Transportation funding to certain state agencies in an effort to boost parking availability for commercial truck drivers. $125 million would be allocated for the year 2022, with annual increases taking place until 2026.

“It’s a huge problem,” said Spear of current parking capabilities. ”It definitely needs to be part of any legislation that you consider. This component really is key, and our entire industry is very much behind it.”

Finally, the issue of freight bottlenecks and the economic obstacles they present was brought to light by Senator Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, who noted a recent American Transportation Research Institute study showing that the smooth movement of commercial trucks is significantly hindered by traffic problems. Freight bottlenecks currently bring about $75 million in costs to freight distribution and 1.2 billion hours of lost trucking industry productivity each year, according to both ATA and ATRI.

“Trucks can sit for hours on the way to Wyoming and…that drives up prices, and sometimes delays business, for people in my state,” explained Lummis.

COVID’s Economic Effect Means State Lawmakers May Raise Taxes to Fund Road and Bridge Repairs

June 12, 2021 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

States are currently “waiting to see what direction the federal government is going to be taking” in regards to raising state infrastructure taxes, according to American Road and Transportation Builders Association advocacy director, Carolyn Kramer.

Tax raising plans have seen little movement through 2021, although many Democratic and Republican lawmakers have often been in agreement in regards to these plans relating to the updating and improvement of bridges and roads throughout the country.

Additionally, the amount of infrastructure boosts and repairs needed has grown steadily while the funds available to do so have declined, likely due to revenue challenges brought about during the COVID-19 era.

However, while many states plan to raise fuel taxes as soon as possible, others aren’t currently seeing the need.

“It looks like a cruise ship sitting in a pond–that’s how much money we’re getting flowing into the state of Colorado from the federal government,” explained Senator Ray Scott of Colorado. “If Biden does get this pushed through and we have additional funding coming our way, why would we go after the taxpayer when we have ways we can handle it right now?”

Some of Colorado’s Democratic legislators plan to raise electric and hybrid vehicle sales fees, retail delivery service fees, ride-sharing company fees, and gasoline sales fees, although Senator Scott is working to create an upgraded transportation plan on any boost in federal funding.

Per capita spending on Colorado transportation has dropped by nearly half in the last 20 years, while gas tax rates throughout the states have remained the same. In regards to an updated state funding plan, Colorado hasn’t undergone a legislative hearing.

“Colorado’s transportation system is so far behind that we need federal investment and we need state-level investment,” said Senator Faith Winter.

Fewer than 170 transportation funding bills have been proposed in 2021 throughout the country, which is only half the number proposed by state lawmakers in 2019. No transportation tax rates increases have been passed, either.

In the works: President Joe Biden has proposed $135 billion for American road and bridge projects (as part of his $2.3 trillion infrastructure plan) and has also signed a coronavirus relief package–including $350 billion for state and local government projects. Many states, including Indiana and Maryland are working to use this funding on a variety of transportation upgrade projects while other states are using their allocated funds in accordance with future federal guidance.

In regards to Biden’s road and bridge funding, Republican Senators have opposed this plan with a counter proposal of $299 billion for infrastructure projects. Congress is also in the process of approving a long-term highway program renewal that would funnel billions to states on an annual basis.

Additionally, Congress is being pushed by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials to double current funding limits and bring about another $485 billion five-year highway program, along with a $200 billion road-and-bridge stimulus.

For North Dakota, recent legislature has passed a $680 million infrastructure bonding plan that would focus on flood-control infrastructure projects as well as $70 million for bridge and road projects–bonds which would be repaid with state oil tax savings earnings as opposed to the Senate-defeated 3-cent gas tax raise.

North Dakota’s bridge and road spending can be funded with the help of federal coronavirus relief package funds and possibly a federal infrastructure bill, according to North Dakota Senate Majority Leader Rich Wardner. A gas tax boost is not needed thanks to the state’s oil fund, he explained.

Many states have come back quickly from the revenue obstacles brought about by COVID-19-related restrictions, even seeing budget surpluses at the hands of federal aid and income tax revenue.

“You cannot sell a tax increase to the public at a time when you’ve got something like $4 billion sitting in your checkbook,” explained Senator Tom Bakk of Minnesota. “That’s just not going to happen.”

29 states have raised fuel taxes since 2013, and these increases, for the sake of road and bridge projects, have received strong support from both republicans and democrats. Still, no states have implemented such an increase since Virginia’s fuel tax increase at the start of COVID-19’s economic effects on the country.

Still, many government officials who oppose any fuel tax increases–regardless of their potential benefit to state infrastructure–have explained that, especially coming out of coronavirus-related economic struggles, many people should not only not have to bear the burden of these revenue deficits, but too many people wouldn’t be able to afford it.

“Adding another almost 10 cents a gallon to the price of their commute, they just wouldn’t be able to handle it,” said Alaska state Representative Kevin McCabe.

DOL Rule Should Stay, Carriers and Independent Truckers Seem to Agree

June 12, 2021 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

There has been a lot of back and forth stipulation in regards to the recently-issued rule determining whether or not a truck driver is considered an employee or a contractor at the federal level.

The rule, which was recently officially implemented, was explained by the U.S. Department of Labor as helping to create “certainty for stakeholders, reduce litigation, and encourage innovation in the economy.”

Now, independent contractors and motor carriers across the nation have made clear their objection to the agency’s proposal to withdraw the rule. More than 1,000 written comments have been made in response to this new proposal.

The initial federal rule, which was issued near the end of 2020, aimed to eradicate the ABC test that had been used in the state of California as a method of determining whether or not a truck driver is an independent contractor, or if the driver is in fact an employee. Motor carriers deemed the rule as being favorable and the American Trucking Associations made clear their support. Some independent contractors even issued comments expressing their opposition to dropping the rule.

Regardless, many industry experts understood that the Biden administration’s review of this rule would likely lead to its dismissal. Public comments have shown a desire to keep it in place; however, the Labor Department has not made a decision as to whether or not this will be the case.

“As a sizable commercial motor carrier utilizing both employee drivers and independent contractors, CRST opposes the rescission of the final rule,” said CRST The Transportation Solution Inc., a carrier based out of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. “In trucking, the independent contractor/owner-operator model provides hundreds of thousands of drivers the opportunity, autonomy, and entrepreneurial empowerment to run their own business and work in ways that suit their individual business, financial goals, and lifestyle.”

According to Spirit Transport Systems Inc., keeping the final rule in place will be vitally important, “specifically and in general to the intermodal transportation and drayage industry.”

Spirit operates within the drayage sector with 38 independent contractors.

“These small business owners earn a commercial driver license, invest in a tractor, and bear the associated operating costs attributable to registration, licensing, insurance, and fuel,” wrote Spirit in response to the proposal. “They also invest a significant amount of time developing their knowledge of–and complying with–federal and state safety regulations.

American Trucking Associations has also strongly opposed the final rule being reversed, noting that it believes these workers should be able to choose the capacity in which they earn their income.

“The final rule achieved a streamlined and commonsense process for more consistent application of independent contractor status,” wrote ATA. “The final rule importantly continues to recognize that working Americans should have the freedom to pick the occupation and economic framework for making a living that they desire.”

The agency also explained its belief that the updated description of independent contractors can help ensure that these workers don’t face any potential litigation in regards to an independent contractor’s duties.

“The final rule also provides businesses with clarity on the characteristics of a bona fide independent contractor so they can more easily comply and avoid litigation while ensuring that DOL’s Wage and Hour Division can pursue those who improperly misclassify their workers as independent contractors.”

Contractor Joseph Cunnigham agreed with ATA’s stance.

“The new DOL rule helps me and freelancers like me to build meaningful, rewarding careers,” he said. “For the sake of millions of others like me–many of whom are women and minorities–please keep the new rule.”

Still, though, the argument against keeping this rule is that truckers working as employees are able to earn a minimum wage, overtime, benefits, and will have companies that will be liable–and have better coverage–in the event of an accident. Keeping truckers on as independent contractors is cheaper for trucking companies–but not necessarily better for those involved in a truck-related crash.

It seems, however, that many independent truckers do indeed value their freedom over these benefits.

“The ABC test in AB 5 implemented three factors for determining employee/independent status and resulted in a situation in which it became extremely difficult to even qualify as an independent contractor,” explained James Alburger, an independent contractor himself. “There are hundreds of thousands of us who thrive on our independence when it comes to the work we choose to do, the way in which we do our work, and the compensation we receive for our work.”