legislation testimony

TAM Testimony – Training tomorrow’s trucking workforce

/in , /by

The following testimony was sent to the Joint Committee on Transportation chairs. Our testimony supports House Bill 3371, directing the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education to create a grant program that would support training and education programs that address the workforce shortages in the commercial trucking industry.

The testimony in support of House Bill 3371, An Act Relative to Training Tomorrow’s Trucking Workforce, is also available as a PDF download.

Dear Chair Crighton, Chair Straus and Members of the Committee:

On behalf of the Trucking Association of Massachusetts (TAM), I am writing in strong support for House Bill 3371, An Act Relative to Training Tomorrow’s Trucking Workforce. With the trucking industry experiencing one of its greatest workforce challenges in recent years, it is essential that the Commonwealth strengthen its pipeline for developing a new workforce for this vital industry.

As drafted, House Bill 3371 seeks to bring a new generation of qualified workers into the trucking profession by directing the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education to create a grant program, subject to appropriation, that would support training and education programs that address the workforce shortages in the commercial trucking industry. The applicable areas of the trucking workforce targeted would include truck drivers, mechanics, technicians, and ancillary support personnel. The grant program would be used to train students, create new jobs, retrain and upgrade existing jobs, and retrain existing workers to implement new technologies and to help meet the workforce needs of the trucking industry within the Commonwealth.

House Bill 3371 is an important initiative for growing the trucking industry in Massachusetts. The creation of this program will allow for the training of students and transitioning career professionals — creating new jobs while improving the retainage and upgrading of existing jobs to help meet the growing workforce needs of the trucking industry. As reported by the American Trucking Associations (ATA), “there is no single cause of the driver shortage, but some of the primary factors include: high average age of current drivers, which leads to a high number of retirements; women making up only 7% of all drivers, well below their representation in the total workforce; the pandemic caused some drivers to leave the industry, [and] truck driver training schools trained far fewer drivers than normal in 2020. At current trends, the shortage could surpass 160,000 in 2030. This forecast is based on driver demographic trends, including gender and age, as well as expected freight growth. “Truck Driver Shortage Analysis Update 2021”, American Trucking Associations (October 2021).

Truck drivers play a crucial role in the current economy. 93% of all goods transported into and within the Commonwealth have been on a truck. Every item on the shelves of Massachusetts retailers are filled with products transported by the trucking industry. With interest in the profession dwindling, there is a clear need to encourage this career path. The revitalization of the profession is important for more than just the trucking companies, but the Commonwealth as a whole. This initiative will create a mechanism for a wide variety of organizations and employers to train and hire trucking professionals to fill the Commonwealth’s workforce shortage.

I appreciate your consideration of this important matter and respectfully request that you issue a favorable report to this legislation. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,

Kevin Weeks
Executive Director

legislation testimony

TAM Testimony – In support of Acts Relative to Rolling Stock

/in , /by

The following testimony – and detailed documentation on our position – was sent today to Massachusetts Joint Committee on Revenue members. Our testimony strongly supports House Bill 2841, Senate Bill 1178, and Senate Bill 1949, Acts Relative to Rolling Stock. The letter is available as a PDF to be printed.

Dear Chair Cusack, Chair Moran and Members of the Committee:

On behalf of the over 250 member companies of the Transportation Association of Massachusetts (TAM), I am writing in strong support of House Bill 2841 / Senate Bill 1178 / Senate Bill 1949, Acts Relative to Rolling Stock. This initiative, which will lead to greater public safety and a cleaner environment, will also lead to additional tax revenue while creating numerous jobs with competitive salaries. The legislation, which has been passed by the Massachusetts House of Representatives as part of other legislative vehicles in the past three sessions, received a favorable report from this Committee the past two sessions.

As you may know, TAM has been the voice of the trucking industry in Massachusetts since 1919. One of the oldest transportation associations in the United States, we represent a wide variety of companies ranging from small, family-owned trucking companies with a single truck to large national trucking companies with thousands of trucks.  The trucking industry within the Commonwealth is responsible for transporting over 90% of all goods and products found in our homes and workplaces. In addition to being a key facilitator for the growth of other industries, the trucking industry is a significant creator of jobs within the Commonwealth.  As a recent study by the Dukakis Center for Urban Research & Policy at Northeastern University stated “[t]he overall trucking industry (including private and for-hire tucking) represent about one in 12 jobs or about 300,000 jobs in Massachusetts in 2017. And, trucking companies meet all Massachusetts freight movement needs.” (“The Importance of the Trucking Industry to the Massachusetts Economy”, Pritchard, R. & Scott, A., p.3 (May 2018)). In terms of employment demographics, the trucking industry is quickly diversifying as companies seek drivers to meet the growing need for trucking.  (“Truck Driver Shortage Analysis 2019”, Costello & Karickhoff, American Trucking Associations, July 2019)(“ In 2018, 40.4% of [truck] drivers were minorities, which has jumped 13.8 percentage points from 26.6% in 2001.).

Notwithstanding the significant impact of the COVID pandemic, rising fuel costs and a depleted workforce, the commercial trucking industry within the Commonwealth has been experiencing a decline as many trucking companies have moved to other states or simply closed down.  Part of the reason that trucking companies have left the state is due to the Commonwealth’s tax policies. In particular, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) collects sales and use tax for rolling stock purchased in other states which have an exemption in place for rolling stock. (i.e. tractors and trailers used in interstate commerce). As a result, any company with a nexus within the Commonwealth is being charged sales and use tax by the DOR even though the rolling stock was purchased in other states.  Accordingly, various truck companies, who may be domiciled in Massachusetts or have repair facilities in Massachusetts, are now seeking to locate them outside of the state to reduce the nexus necessary to collect such tax.

Exempting the sale and use of rolling stock from taxation will bring Massachusetts in line with a majority of other states (37) within which an exemption from sales and use tax for rolling stock already exists. In fact, every surrounding New England state, except Vermont which applies a de minimus fee, has a rolling stock exemption in place. That said, amending Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 64H (i.e. sales tax) and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 64I (i.e. use tax) to specifically exempt rolling stock from the sales and use tax brings much more than simple tax relief to the trucking industry. According to the aforementioned study conducted by the Dukakis Center for Urban Research & Policy, the elimination of the sales and use tax on rolling stock will, following national trends, create “2,768 more employees and 2,076 more power units … operating and generating an additional $15.9 million in tax revenue per year; while not estimable, … the impact on private fleets may be just as large.” (“The Importance of the Trucking Industry to the Massachusetts Economy”, Pritchard, R. & Scott, A., p.14 (May 2018)).

The need for eliminating the taxation of rolling stock cannot be overstated.  First, this initiative will create a more attractive environment for trucking companies to remain in the Commonwealth. Trucking companies rely on constantly maintaining and upgrading their equipment. This means purchasing new rolling stock on a regular basis. If trucking companies know that their out-of-state purchases will incur an in-state tax, the companies will work to continue to reduce their nexus to the taxing state. As it stands, Massachusetts trucking companies are already at a competitive disadvantage when competing against carriers located in the neighboring states.

Second, but just as important, this initiative will have a significant positive impact on public safety and the environment. Exempting the sale and use of rolling stock from taxation will encourage the purchase of new equipment with the latest technology available as well incentivize companies to operate their newer trucks in the Commonwealth. This directly increases public safety and creates additional environmental benefits. In terms of public safety, new trucks include lane-departure, crash collision and speed regulator technology that significantly improve road safety. In terms of environmental benefits, newer trucks have more efficient engines and exhaust systems. This leads to greater fuel efficiency and reduces emissions of NOx and particulate matter to further support the Commonwealth’s fuel efficiency and clean air efforts. Given the Commonwealth’s recent interest in reducing emissions from the transportation sector, the rolling stock initiative makes even more sense.

Third, by keeping trucking companies in the Commonwealth, the good jobs and competitive salaries that these companies offer will remain within the state. According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Massachusetts is in the top ten for annual mean wage for heavy and tractor-trailer drivers within the country.  (See http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes533032.htm). If more trucking companies find Massachusetts tax policy less favorable than neighboring states, it is likely the decrease in Massachusetts trucking companies will become even more significant.

Fourth, if the Commonwealth discourages trucking companies from domiciling in the state, transportation expenses will rise — further impacting the high cost of living already experienced in the Commonwealth.  The costs associated with transporting goods are fairly straightforward. (See https://truckingresearch.org/2022/08/10/an-analysis-of-the-operational-costs-of-trucking-2022-update/) (“Total marginal cost of trucking grew by 12.7 percent in 2021 to $1.855 per mile, the highest on record. Leading contributors to this increase were fuel (35.4% higher than in 2020), repair and maintenance (18.2% higher than in 2020), and driver wages (10.8% higher than in 2020”). If the Commonwealth’s tax policies continue to cause trucking companies to domicile elsewhere, the additional fuel, tolls and vehicle maintenance, among other costs, will be borne by Massachusetts residents and businesses that already rely on the industry for over 90% of their goods. If the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated one thing about the trucking industry, it is that it remains essential to residents and businesses alike.

This initiative is a matter of common sense. Given that neighboring states such as New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont (partial) exempt rolling stock from sales and use tax, Massachusetts’ current tax policy is causing higher costs for Massachusetts residents and businesses while driving economic opportunity to neighboring states. This initiative, which has been passed by the Massachusetts House of Representatives during the past three sessions, will not exclude trucking companies from the myriad of other taxes and fees the industry pays to the Commonwealth each year. This initiative simply tries to keep Massachusetts on par with the vast majority of states (37) with an exemption already in place.

On behalf of the thousands of men and women in Massachusetts who rely on the good jobs and competitive salaries these Massachusetts companies provide; I respectfully request that you issue a favorable report to this legislation. Again, including language to create an exemption from the Massachusetts sales and use tax as applied to rolling stock for trucks will produce additional tax revenue in the future while strengthening the trucking industry in Massachusetts in a manner that also improves the environment and public safety.

For your review, I have attached a variety of information about this initiative for your review.  If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know. I appreciate your consideration of this important matter.

Sincerely,

Kevin Weeks
Executive Director

legislation testimony

TAM Testimony – Rolling stock tax relief initiative

/in , /by

The following testimony – and detailed documentation on our position – was sent today to Massachusetts Governor Maura Healy. Our testimony encourages the governor to include the rolling stock tax relief initiative into the administration’s tax reform proposal. The letter is available as a PDF to be printed.

Dear Governor Healey:

On behalf of the over 250 member companies of the Transportation Association of Massachusetts (TAM), I am writing relative to the rolling stock tax relief initiative. This initiative, which will lead to greater public safety and a cleaner environment, will also lead to additional tax revenue while creating numerous jobs with competitive salaries. Accordingly, I respectfully request that you include this initiative as part of any tax relief / tax reform proposal submitted to the Massachusetts legislature.

As you may know, TAM has been the voice of the trucking industry in Massachusetts since 1919. One of the oldest transportation associations in the United States, we represent a wide variety of companies ranging from small, family-owned trucking companies with a single truck to large national trucking companies with thousands of trucks. The trucking industry within the Commonwealth is responsible for transporting over 90% of all goods and products found in our homes and workplaces. In addition to being a key facilitator for the growth of other industries, the trucking industry is a significant creator of jobs within the Commonwealth. As a recent study by the Dukakis Center for Urban Research & Policy at Northeastern University stated “[t]he overall trucking industry (including private and for-hire tucking) represent about one in 12 jobs or about 300,000 jobs in Massachusetts in 2017. And, trucking companies meet all Massachusetts freight movement needs.” (“The Importance of the Trucking Industry to the Massachusetts Economy”, Pritchard, R. & Scott, A., p.3 (May 2018)). In terms of employment demographics, the trucking industry is quickly diversifying as companies seek drivers to meet the growing need for trucking. (“Truck Driver Shortage Analysis 2019”, Costello & Karickhoff, American Trucking Associations, July 2019)(“ In 2018, 40.4% of [truck] drivers were minorities, which has jumped 13.8 percentage points from 26.6% in 2001.).

Notwithstanding the significant impact of the COVID pandemic, rising fuel costs and a depleted workforce, the commercial trucking industry within the Commonwealth has been experiencing a decline as many trucking companies have moved to other states or simply closed down. Part of the reason that trucking companies have left the state is due to the Commonwealth’s tax policies. In particular, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) collects sales and use tax for rolling stock purchased in other states which have an exemption in place for rolling stock. (i.e. tractors and trailers used in interstate commerce). As a result, any company with a substantial nexus within the Commonwealth is being charged sales and use tax by the DOR even though the rolling stock was purchased in other states. Accordingly, various truck companies, who may be domiciled in Massachusetts or have repair facilities in Massachusetts, are now seeking to locate them outside of the state to reduce the nexus necessary to collect such tax.

Exempting the sale and use of rolling stock from taxation will bring Massachusetts in line with a majority of other states (37) within which an exemption from sales and use tax for rolling stock already exists. In fact, every surrounding New England state, except Vermont which applies a de minimus fee, has a rolling stock exemption in place. That said, amending Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 64H (i.e. sales tax) and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 64I (i.e. use tax) to specifically exempt rolling stock from the sales and use tax brings much more than simple tax relief to the trucking industry. According to the aforementioned study conducted by the Dukakis Center for Urban Research & Policy, the elimination of the sales and use tax on rolling stock will, following national trends, create “2,768 more employees and 2,076 more power units … operating and generating an additional $15.9 million in tax revenue per year; while not estimable, … the impact on private fleets may be just as large.” (“The Importance of the Trucking Industry to the Massachusetts Economy”, Pritchard, R. & Scott, A., p.14 (May 2018)).

The need for eliminating the taxation of rolling stock cannot be overstated. First, this initiative will create a more attractive environment for trucking companies to remain in the Commonwealth. Trucking companies rely on constantly maintaining and upgrading their equipment. This means purchasing new rolling stock on a regular basis. If trucking companies know that their out-of-state purchases will incur an in-state tax, the companies will work to continue to reduce their nexus to the taxing state. As it stands, Massachusetts trucking companies are already at a competitive disadvantage when competing against carriers located in the neighboring states.

Second, but just as important, this initiative will have a significant positive impact on public safety and the environment. Exempting the sale and use of rolling stock from taxation will encourage the purchase of new equipment with the latest technology available as well incentivize companies to operate their newer trucks in the Commonwealth. This directly increases public safety and creates additional environmental benefits. In terms of public safety, new trucks include lane-departure, crash collision and speed regulator technology that significantly improve road safety. In terms of environmental benefits, newer trucks have more efficient engines and exhaust systems. This leads to greater fuel efficiency and reduces emissions of NOx and particulate matter to further support the Commonwealth’s fuel efficiency and clean air efforts. Given the Commonwealth’s recent interest in reducing emissions from the transportation sector, the rolling stock initiative makes even more sense.

Third, by keeping trucking companies in the Commonwealth, the good jobs and competitive salaries that these companies offer will remain within the state. According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Massachusetts is in the top ten for annual mean wage for heavy and tractor-trailer drivers within the country. (See http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes533032.htm). If more trucking companies find Massachusetts tax policy less favorable than neighboring states, it is likely the decrease in Massachusetts trucking companies will become even more significant.

Fourth, if the Commonwealth discourages trucking companies from domiciling in the state, transportation expenses will rise — further impacting the high cost of living already experienced in the Commonwealth. The costs associated with transporting goods are fairly straightforward. (“Total marginal cost of trucking grew by 12.7 percent in 2021 to $1.855 per mile, the highest on record. Leading contributors to this increase were fuel (35.4% higher than in 2020), repair and maintenance (18.2% higher than in 2020), and driver wages (10.8% higher than in 2020”). If the Commonwealth’s tax policies continue to cause trucking companies to domicile elsewhere, the additional fuel, tolls and vehicle maintenance, among other costs, will be borne by Massachusetts residents and businesses that already rely on the industry for their goods. If the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated one thing about the trucking industry, it is that it remains essential to residents and businesses alike.

This initiative is a matter of common sense. Given that neighboring states such as New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont (partial) exempt rolling stock from sales and use tax, Massachusetts’ current tax policy is causing higher costs for Massachusetts residents and businesses while driving economic opportunity to neighboring states. This initiative, which has been passed by the Massachusetts House of Representatives during the past three sessions, will not exclude trucking companies from the myriad of other taxes and fees the industry pays to the Commonwealth each year. This initiative simply tries to keep Massachusetts on par with the vast majority of states (37) with an exemption already in place.

On behalf of the thousands of men and women in Massachusetts who rely on the good jobs and competitive salaries these Massachusetts companies provide; I respectfully urge you to include relief for Massachusetts trucking companies and Massachusetts companies with truck fleets within any tax relief / tax reform proposal submitted to the Massachusetts legislature. Again, including language to create an exemption from the Massachusetts sales and use tax as applied to rolling stock for trucks will produce additional tax revenue in the future while strengthening the trucking industry in Massachusetts in a manner that also improves the environment and public safety.

For your review, I have attached a variety of information about this initiative for your review. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know. I appreciate your consideration of this important matter.

Sincerely,

Kevin Weeks
Executive Director

All attachments and the above letter are included in the downloadable PDF that can be printed. It includes the following:

  • SD1392, An Act Relative to the Taxation of Rolling Stock
  • Fact Sheet – Rolling Stock Initiative Overview
  • Fact Sheet – Environmental Benefits of the Rolling Stock Initiative
  • Fact Sheet – Public Safety Benefits of the Rolling Stock Initiative
legislation testimony

TAM Testimony – Large Entity Reporting Requirement

/in , /by

The following testimony was sent today to Ms. Ngoc Hoang, environmental analyst at the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Air and Waste. It concerns 310 CMR 7.41, Large Entity Reporting Requirement. The letter is available as a PDF to be printed.

Dear Ms. Hoang:

On behalf of the over 250 member companies of the Transportation Association of Massachusetts (TAM), I am writing to provide comments relative to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP’s) proposed regulation 310 CMR 7.41, Large Entity Reporting Requirement.

As you may know, TAM has been the voice of the trucking industry in Massachusetts since 1919. One of the oldest transportation associations within the Commonwealth, we represent a wide variety of companies ranging from small, family-owned trucking companies with a single truck to large national trucking companies with thousands of trucks. The trucking industry within the Commonwealth is responsible for transporting over 90% of all goods and products found in our homes and workplaces. In addition to being a key facilitator for the growth of other industries, the trucking industry is a significant creator of jobs within the Commonwealth. As a recent study by the Dukakis Center for Urban Research & Policy at Northeastern University stated “[t]he overall trucking industry (including private and for-hire tucking) represent about one in 12 jobs or about 300,000 jobs in Massachusetts in 2017. And, trucking companies meet all Massachusetts freight movement needs.” (“The Importance of the Trucking Industry to the Massachusetts Economy”, Pritchard, R. & Scott, A., p.3 (May 2018)). In terms of employment demographics, the trucking industry is quickly diversifying as companies seek drivers to meet the growing need for trucking. (“Truck Driver Shortage Analysis 2019”, Costello & Karickhoff, American Trucking Associations, July 2019)(“ In 2018, 40.4% of [truck] drivers were minorities, which has jumped 13.8 percentage points from 26.6% in 2001.).

TAM and its members have been active participants in reducing the trucking industry’s carbon footprint throughout the Commonwealth already. TAM, which has supported tougher idling laws and their enforcement; increased auxiliary power unit weight exemptions; and the establishment of cogent transportation rules to reduce delays, recognizes that the future is “green”. The use of “clean” diesel fuels and advanced engine technology in today’s new trucks reduces emissions of particulate matter (PM) by 99% and nitrous oxide (NOX) by 98%. While the ultimate goal is to produce no engine emissions, it is important to note that newer heavy duty trucks are already minimizing emissions on many levels. The transition to zero emission heavy duty trucks cannot – nor will not – happen overnight. To the aforementioned point, mandates that simply push the burden of zero emissions compliance completely on the trucking industry – without providing the necessary infrastructure, financial support and technology – will ultimately harm the trucking industry and the residents and businesses in Massachusetts that rely on it.

With this in mind, TAM respectfully requests your consideration of the following points:

  1. Purpose of the Proposed Inventory Rule. The “Background Document” made available by the DEP states that the agency is promulgating this regulation “so it (DEP) can assess the ways to develop and locate charging infrastructure and programs on how to support and accelerate the MHD ZEV market in Massachusetts”. The document, which acknowledges a similar inventory regulation was promulgated by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), further comments on the DEP’s “adoption of CARB’s Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT), Phase 2 GHG, and Heavy-duty Omnibus regulations.” Although these latter regulations will increase the price of trucks in Massachusetts while the regulatory burden is placed on the manufacturers, no mention is made of CARB’s upcoming Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) regulation, which will require fleets with 50 or more trucks to purchase zero emissions vehicles (ZEV) trucks. The original survey, which was part of CARB’s ACT regulation, was adopted with the intent to develop/justify the ACF regulation. Accordingly, is the proposed regulation merely a stepping-stone for the DEP following the CARB’s ACF regulation, which simply lays a de facto mandate on any companies that utilize trucks? Or, more appropriately, will this inventory be used in a cooperative manner that seeks the development of an incentive-based approach to replacing the trucking industry’s existing vehicles. Put simply, why bother with a “large entity (fleet) inventory” if DEP has already decided that it will follow the existing CARB regulations? The trucking industry in Massachusetts, which is already in a precarious position, will be adversely impacted if the DEP does not engage in a collaborative approach that provides the necessary infrastructure, financial support and availability of technology.
  2. Size of the Fleets to be Inventoried. TAM urges the DEP to reject any calls for reducing the number of trucks within a fleet for purposes of reporting and complying with the proposed regulation. The proposed regulatory reporting is already going to be onerous on the companies that have 40 or more trucks within their fleet. Reducing the reporting requirement to companies with five or more trucks in their fleet will significantly burden countless small companies while likely providing more data than the DEP will be able to effectively use. From direct experience with their fleets in California, certain TAM members have reported that CARB’s “reporting costs of $50 per hour and 25 hours per entity, or approximately $1,250 for each entity” are optimistic at best.¹
  3. Routing Information. TAM opposes any additional requirement to report on a truck’s specific route or, collectively, routes used by a trucking company as part of this proposed regulation. While appreciative of the concern for environmental justice (EJ) communities, mandating the release of a company’s operations information at that level of detail would open a pandora’s box of potential legal and practical issues. Notwithstanding the time, cost and effort of compiling that data, the information would also lead to concerns about anti-competitive actions by competitors or municipal routing actions in contravention to federal law and regulations governing the same.²

Alternative fuel heavy duty and medium duty trucks still remain much more expensive than traditional diesel-powered trucks of the same class and designation. The proposed large entity inventory regulation can be useful if the data is used to underpin arguments for increasing both incentives for the purchase of new, alternative fuel heavy and medium duty trucks and improving the infrastructure necessary to support the future use of such vehicles. Otherwise, Massachusetts’ current energy infrastructure for alternative fuel vehicles will be unable to support the entire trucking industry’s needs even if affordable alternative fueled vehicles existed.

I appreciate your consideration of these comments to the DEP’s proposed regulation, 310 CMR 7.41, Large Entity Reporting Requirement. TAM looks forward making sure that the eventual transition from diesel fueled engines remains practical and affordable for all. To that end, we implore the agency to include the trucking industry at the table before further regulations are promulgated.

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,

Kevin Weeks
Executive Director, Trucking Association of Massachusetts

¹ Again, TAM is unclear why the DEP did not also adopt the 50-truck limit that CARB used. If we purport to be following CARB’s lead – including their cost estimates for compliance, why not simply set the standard at trucking companies with 50 or more qualifying trucks? If this “large entity inventory” requirement is a merely a “check box” for eventually adopting the CARB regulations, why create this different reporting threshold?

² On a related, but slightly different note, TAM appreciates the specific reference to 310 CMR 3.00, governing the use and handling of confidential information by state agencies.

legislation testimony

In support of legislation to meet the workforce needs of the trucking industry

/in /by

The following communication was sent today to the House Chair, Senate Vice Chair, and members of the Joint Committee on Transportation expressing TAMs strong support for for House Bill 3522, An Act Relative to the Training of Tomorrow’s Trucking Industry Workforce. The letter is also available as a PDF to be printed.

Dear Chair Straus, Vice Chair Keenan and Members of the Committee:

On behalf of the over 250 member companies of the Trucking Association of Massachusetts (TAM), I am writing to urge your strong support for House Bill 3522, An Act Relative to the Training of Tomorrow’s Trucking Industry Workforce. This legislation, which received a favorable report from a different committee last session, will encourage the training of students and transitioning of career professionals to meet the growing workforce needs of the trucking industry.

In Massachusetts, the trucking industry is a key driver of economic growth: it accounts for about 1 out every of 12 jobs in the Commonwealth, or approximately 300,000 jobs in total as of 2017. There are many lucrative career options within the trucking industry. For example, according to the United States Bureau of Labor and Statistics, heavy and tractor-trailer truck drivers make upwards of $60,000 per year. Many trucking industry jobs don’t require a college degree, unlike certain jobs in today’s market, making trucking an attractive profession for those looking to earn a steady income without first spending a lot of their own money and time to attend four or more years of school.

Despite the potential career options that the trucking industry offers, the industry is facing a workforce shortage. According to the American Trucking Association, the industry will need to hire almost 900,000 new drivers and other key positions nationally over the coming decade, with most of the demand resulting from retiring drivers and industry growth. At the same time, interest in the profession is waning, making it difficult for the industry to fill these vital positions. By 2026, the ATA forecasts that the industry could be facing a shortage of almost 175,000 drivers and additional trucking industry workforce. When you consider that 93% of all goods transported into and within the Commonwealth are carried on a truck, it becomes clear that this shortage is a problem not just for the trucking industry, but the Commonwealth as a whole. Indeed, the trucking industry workforce shortage could cost Massachusetts to miss out on significant tax revenues: a study by the Dukakis Center for Urban Research and Policy at Northeastern University recently estimated that each local trucking employee generates about $3,396 per year in state and local payroll, income and property taxes.

Accordingly, House Bill 3522 would create a mechanism for a wide variety of organizations and employers to train and hire individuals for positions within the trucking industry to address this workforce shortage. By establishing a Trucking Industry Workforce Training Fund, the bill would provide a source of funding by which employers and employer associations, local workforce investment boards, institutions of higher education, vocational schools, and other organizations could finance programs to support both the training of the next generation of the trucking workforce and the retention and upgrading of the existing trucking workforce.

In order to finance the Trucking Industry Workforce Training Fund, the bill would create a $5 surcharge on all applications for licensure or renewal of a commercial driver’s license. This mechanism ensures that no financial burden would fall on most residents of the Commonwealth. Organizations across the Commonwealth could then apply for grants, financed by the Trucking Industry Workforce Training Fund, to operate training programs, which will follow guidelines established by the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education. This funding will be crucial in addressing the trucking industry’s workforce shortage, and, ultimately, enable individuals to obtain good careers in a vibrant and growing industry.

I appreciate your consideration of House Bill 3522, An Act Relative to Training Tomorrow’s Trucking Industry Workforce, and respectfully request that the Committee release the bill with a favorable report. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns. I look forward to working with you on this important matter.

Sincerely,

Kevin R Weeks
Executive Director

legislation testimony

TAM Testimony – Related to legislation filed relative to autonomous vehicles

/in /by

On Jan. 17, Kevin Weeks, the executive director of the Trucking Association of Massachusetts, submitted written testimony relative to House Bill 3013, Senate Bill 2115, House Bill 3143, and House Bill 3089 filed relative to autonomous vehicles. The testimony is provided below, and a PDF is available for download.

For additional information, contact the Trucking Association of Massachusetts.

Download & Print Testimony

Honorable William Straus, House Chair
Honorable Joseph Boncore, Senate Chair
Joint Committee on Transportation
State House, Room 134
Boston, Massachusetts 02133

Dear Chair Straus, Chair Boncore, and Members of the Committee:

On behalf of the over 250 member companies of the Trucking Association of Massachusetts (“TAM”) which employ thousands of individuals throughout the Commonwealth, I am writing in regard to House Bill 3013, Senate Bill 2115, House Bill 3143, and House Bill 3089 filed relative to autonomous vehicles. We ask that you consider the potential impact of regulating autonomous vehicles carrying passengers on the trucking industry as it begins to implement autonomous technology on its trucks.

The TAM recognizes the importance of considering regulations on passenger vehicles at this time, but autonomous technology as related to autonomous trucks is still developing and will have the ability to benefit all aspects of the industry. Regulations on passenger vehicles at this time may inadvertently limit the use of these autonomous trucks in the future. A fully autonomous truck will have the ability to identify, interact with and safely react to all aspects of the driving environment without a driver in control of the wheel. However, it may be decades before this vehicle could be commercially available. For your reference, we have again enclosed a report by the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) that outlines the future of AV technology in the trucking industry.

There are different levels of “autonomy” that come with different technologies, functionalities, and expectations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) have developed automation scales ranging from Level 0 of no automation to Level 5 of full automation where no operator is present in the truck. Level 3 is conditional automation where an automated system can actually conduct some parts of the driving task, but there must be a driver present to take back control of when the automated system requests. The timeline of Level 3 and Level 5 trucks replacing the existing US trucks is dependent on the investment in research and development.

The progressive implementation of these levels of autonomous technology will benefit the industry as it will increase driver health and wellness and their productivity, address industry issues of driver shortage and retention, and decrease need for truck parking facilities. Road safety will also increase as urban congestion is mitigated with the widespread use of autonomous vehicles.

Drivers currently work and drive in 14-hour shifts driving up to 11 of those hours. Autonomous trucks would allow for drivers to take more rest breaks, simultaneously increasing road safety with driver awareness and increasing productivity. Due to these conditions, there is currently a shortage of 48,000 drivers that will increase to 175,000 drivers by 2024. To address this issue, the use of autonomous technology can make truck driving an attractive career as it decreases fatigue and stress, and allows drivers to get home earlier. The technology would also decrease the number of trucks needed, leading to a decreased driver shortage.

Please refer to the attached report by ATRI for further information of the impact of autonomous technology on the trucking industry when considering the legislation regarding autonomous vehicles before your committee. I appreciate your consideration of this important matter. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.consider the potential impact of regulating autonomous vehicles carrying passengers on the trucking industry as it begins to implement autonomous technology on its trucks.

Sincerely,

Kevin Weeks
Executive Director

legislation testimony

TAM Testimony – Concerning House Bill 3980, An Act to Promote Commercial Driving Safety

/in /by

On Jan. 2, Kevin Weeks, the executive director of the Trucking Association of Massachusetts, submitted written testimony relative to House Bill 3980, An Act to Promote Commercial Driving Safety. The testimony is provided below, and a PDF is available for download.

For additional information, contact the Trucking Association of Massachusetts.

Download & Print Testimony

Honorable William Straus, House Chair
Honorable Joseph Boncore, Senate Chair
Joint Committee on Transportation
State House, Room 134
Boston, Massachusetts 02133

Dear Chair Boncore, Chair Straus and Members of the Committee:

On behalf of the Trucking Association of Massachusetts (TAM), I am writing relative to House Bill 3980, An Act to Promote Commercial Driving Safety. TAM, which has a proven history of supporting increased public safety measures, respectfully requests that this legislation be amended to reflect a variety of practical considerations that will not impact the public safety objectives of this legislation.

As you know, TAM has been the voice of the trucking industry in Massachusetts since 1919. One of the oldest transportation associations within the Commonwealth, our membership represents a wide variety of companies ranging from small, family owned trucking companies with a single truck to large national trucking companies with thousands of trucks. The trucking industry within the Commonwealth is responsible for transporting 87%-93% of all goods and products found in our homes and workplaces. In addition to being a key facilitator for the growth of other industries, the trucking industry is a significant creator of jobs within the Commonwealth. As a recent study by the Dukakis Center for Urban Research & Policy at Northeastern University stated “[t]he overall trucking industry (including private and for-hire tucking) represent about one in 12 jobs or about 300,000 jobs in Massachusetts in 2017. And, trucking companies meet all Massachusetts freight movement needs.” (“The Importance of the Trucking Industry to the Massachusetts Economy”, Pritchard, R. & Scott, A., p.3 (May 2018)).

Most importantly, TAM and its members work to ensure that the Commonwealth’s roadways are safe for the general public as well as commercial motor vehicles. Safety is the single most important consideration for trucking companies or companies with trucking fleets – whether hauling hazardous materials, household goods or food products. As a result, TAM and its members work closely with local, state and federal officials to ensure that drivers are appropriately trained and licensed; tractors and trailers are legally compliant and safe for operation, and best management practices for reducing risk are employed every day.

In reviewing, HB3980, TAM respectfully requests that the Committee consider the following four areas for potential amendment:

(1). Section 11: Three years clear driving history and the unintentional increase to the minimum age for a CDL. A plain reading of Section 11 of HB3980 would appear to push the Commonwealth’s minimum driving age for acquiring a CDL license to 19+. Specifically, the bill’s language states: “An applicant for a commercial driver’s license shall be a duly licensed motor vehicle operator for a period of 3 continuous years immediately prior to his or her application.”. In the Commonwealth, the earliest an individual can obtain a junior driver’s license is 16 ½ years old. A requirement for a three year period of clear driving would accordingly push the minimum age for acquiring a CDL to 19½ years of age. This will push the minimum age qualification for an intrastate CDL from the current standard of 18 years of age. Given that an 18 year old may currently hold a CDL for in-state operation of a commercial motor vehicle, HB3980 will harm employers who utilize 18 year old to 19½ year old intrastate operators.

(2). Section 11: Prohibition for obtaining a CDL and the types of infractions which cause a suspension. HB3980 would prohibit the issuance of a CDL due to a wide range of previously committed offenses resulting in a suspended license for the applicant. However, the list of offenses that could result in the suspension of the CDL applicant’s Class D driver’s license contains a number of offenses that have nothing to do with driving. For example, a license suspension resulting from Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266, §126A ( “tagging”, aka grafitti) or Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, §22G (“littering”) would prevent an individual from ever being eligible for a CDL. While not condoning such action, it is still difficult to understand why offenses unrelated to driving or, even, not actual moving violations should prevent an applicant from applying for a CDL. (Note: if a standard needs to be restated, consider instead using the criteria established in Melanie’s law, Chapter 122 of the Acts of 2005, already used by trucking companies / truck driving schools.).

(3). Section 11: Grandfathering students currently in truck driving schools or training programs. Under Section 11’s prohibitions for acquiring a CDL, the enactment of HB3980 would potentially harm students, enrolled at that time, in truck driving schools or training programs, who would otherwise be disqualified from driving a truck. Under existing law, potential applicants for CDLs are not in jeopardy because of a previous license suspension due to littering, the failure to pay child support or a similar type of infraction. However, the enactment of HB3980, without some type of grandfathering clause, would cause financial and other harms to these individuals, who started a truck driving school or training program before they knew they would be prohibited from obtaining a CDL. Accordingly, TAM respectfully requests that a provision be included within the legislation to “grandfather” any students in a truck driving or training program at the time any potential law is made effective.

(4). Section 16: Definition of employers. This section requires employers to register for the Registry of Motor Vehicles’ (RMV’s) free driver verification service (DVS) service. The question from many of the companies within a number of industries is simple – how far does the definition of employer extend? For example, if a national company has many out of state CDL holders and a few CDL holders licensed in Massachusetts, must it sign up for the RMV’s DVS for every employee or independent contractor? Likewise, if an employer already uses a “pay” service that exceeds the requirements of the DVS, must an employer register for a second, redundant service? Again, TAM welcomes the opportunity to work with the Committee to clarify these questions in the proposed law so that the Commonwealth’s roadways are made safer without unnecessarily harming employers or their employees.

Trucking is a heavily regulated industry. The laws and regulations, whether federal or state, that oversee the industry ensure that both drivers and their equipment meet stringent safety standards and training. TAM appreciates the thought that has gone into HB3980; it is a piece of legislation that aims to close potential loopholes in the CDL law. The legislation’s provisions implementing a reasonable electronic device hands-free prohibition, penalties for inappropriate approaches to railroad crossings and empowering the RMV to suspend a CDL on notice from another government entity are laudable public safety measures. With that in mind, TAM, through the four aforementioned points listed above, seeks to make the legislation before the Committee one that protects the public, yet understands the practical considerations trucking companies must address in order to comply with the proposed law.

I appreciate your consideration of this important matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,

Kevin Weeks
Executive Director

legislation testimony

TAM Testimony – Opposition to House Bill 3129, and in support of Senate Bill 2141

/in /by

On Jan. 2, Kevin Weeks, the executive director of the Trucking Association of Massachusetts, submitted written testimony in opposition to House Bill 3129, An Act relative to the use of liquid calcium chloride on state highways, and in support of Senate Bill 2141, An Act relative to commercial fees. The testimony is provided below, and a PDF is available for download.

For additional information, contact the Trucking Association of Massachusetts.

Download & Print Testimony

Honorable Joseph Boncore, Senate Chair
Honorable William Straus, House Chair
Joint Committee on Transportation
State House, Room 134
Boston, Massachusetts 02133

Dear Chair Straus, Chair Boncore and Members of the Committee:

On behalf of the over 250 trucking company members of the Trucking Association of Massachusetts (“TAM”), I am writing in opposition to House Bill 3129, An Act relative to the use of liquid calcium chloride on state highways, and in support of Senate Bill 2141, An Act relative to commercial fees.

House Bill 3129 seeks to prevent the use of liquid calcium chloride for the treatment, prevention or removal of snow or ice on roads or bridges within the Commonwealth, or for any other related purpose. As you may know, liquid calcium chloride is used to pre-wet salts as part of an anti-icing strategy. The liquid calcium chloride is applied to dry salts before or during salt application to the pavement. When the liquid is applied to the rock salt particle, it penetrates ice and snow pack better and decreases the loss of salt from traffic action by 30%. The use of liquid calcium chloride as part of anti-icing strategy is proactive in ice control as it prevents ice from bonding to the surface and leads to better pavement conditions, easier clean-up, and requires less chemicals, decreasing the environmental impact.

During winter storm conditions, trucking companies are specifically concerned about the accumulation of snow and ice on the Commonwealth’s roads and bridges. Accordingly, TAM supports strategies that address snow and ice control in as efficient and safe a manner as possible. Calcium chloride is the most widely used non-sodium chloride deicer and provides performance advantages over other deicers as only small quantities are necessary due to its ability to melt ice faster and at lower temperatures. These qualities decrease costs, increase safety, and minimize environmental impact. As a result, discontinuing the use of liquid calcium chloride will likely lead to a number of avoidable harms. Primarily, discontinuing the use of liquid calcium chloride will increase costs by increasing the quantity of salt that must be used on roads and bridges while increasing the likelihood excess rock salt will make its way into sensitive environmental areas adjacent to the Commonwealth’s roads and bridges. Given a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s report that Massachusetts has among the lowest road fatality rate in the nation for trucking, now is not the time change a successful process.

With respect to Senate Bill 2141, the legislation proposes to cap fees on any individual fee to no more than 2.5 per cent in a calendar year. As well, the legislation requires the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) to offer a discount for any person registering 5 or more units in a calendar year, including but not limited to, semi-trailers (normal), semi-trailer (reserved), trailer (normal), trailer (reserved). The discount shall be in an amount of no less than 10 percent of each registration fee they would otherwise incur. Finally, the legislation requires the RMV to issue a report to the legislature within 90 days offering recommendations to reduce the cost of operating a commercial vehicle or unit in Massachusetts in order to promote competition with neighboring states.

Just as TAM has argued in favor of eliminating the state’s rolling stock tax, Massachusetts is a comparatively expensive jurisdiction to domicile or operate a trucking company within. Certain taxes and fees on essential aspects of operating a trucking company are simply higher than those in the other New England states. SB2141 would provide a small measure of relief by reducing the potential for large fee increases while also offering a key reduction in costs for fleet registration. To retain the trucking industry’s presence in the Commonwealth, which in turn reduces costs for consumers and creates jobs for residents, there needs to be a competitive environment to foster the growth of this important industry. SB2141 will provide a reasonable and measured strategy for creating a sustainable platform for the trucking industry in this state.

I appreciate your consideration of these two important matters. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,

Kevin Weeks
Executive Director

legislation testimony

TAM Testimony – In opposition to Senate Bill 2148, and House Bills 3027 & 3670

/in /by

On July 26, Kevin Weeks, the executive director of the Trucking Association of Massachusetts, submitted written testimony in opposition to House Bill 3027, An Act Relative to Route 60 in the Towns of Arlington and Medford; Senate Bill 2148, Relative to the Use of the Neponset Valley Parkway in the Town of Milton; and House Bill 3670, An Act Relative to Municipal Truck Routes. The testimony is provided below, and a PDF is available for download.

For additional information, contact the Trucking Association of Massachusetts.

Download & Print Testimony

Honorable William Straus, House Chairman
Honorable Joseph Boncore, Senate Chairman
State House, Room 134
Boston, Massachusetts 02133

Dear Chairmen and Members of the Committee:

On behalf of the over 250 trucking company members of the Trucking Association of Massachusetts (“TAM”), I am writing in strong opposition to House Bill 3027, An Act Relative to Route 60 in the Towns of Arlington and Medford; Senate Bill 2148, Relative to the Use of the Neponset Valley Parkway in the Town of Milton; and House Bill 3670, An Act Relative to Municipal Truck Routes. TAM respectfully requests that these bills be held in committee due to existing federal and state regulations already governing the transportation of hazardous materials, specifically, and the effect on neighboring municipalities, generally.

Under the applicable provisions of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (“STAA”), local governments are prohibited from denying reasonable access to trucks. 49 U.S.C. § 31114. Further, under the STAA, trucks transporting household goods must have access to points of loads and unloading. 49 U.S.C. 31114(a)(2) and 23 C.F.R. 6 658.19(a). A municipality, if legally trying to create citywide or even specific route exclusions, cannot unilaterally declare that limited truck routes exist within its confines. 23 C.F.R. § 658.11(d)(1). A local municipality must petition the Governor of the Commonwealth, through his representative, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (“MassDOT”), for truck route and time exclusions. Id. The state’s request is then forwarded to the Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”) – this approval by FHWA constitutes the final decision of the United States Department of Transportation. 23 C.F.R. § 658.11.

Further, the federal government has taken a lead role in coordinating the regulation of transporting hazardous materials through the Nation, generally, and states, specifically. 49 U.S.C §5101 (“purpose of this chapter is to provide adequate protection against the risks to life and property inherent in the transportation of hazardous material in commerce by improving the regulatory and enforcement authority of the Secretary of Transportation”). To preserve this authority, Congress included language providing a federal preemption of any state, local or territory hazardous materials route established after 1994 that did not follow an appropriate review and study process. 49 USC §5125. Accordingly, federal law provides such a mechanism; namely, allowing a State or Indian tribe to establish, maintain, or enforce a highway routing designation over which hazardous material may or may not be transported by motor vehicles, or a limitation or requirement related to highway routing, only if the designation, limitation, or requirement complies with 49 U.S.C. 5112(b). 49 U.S.C. 5125(c)(1) (emphasis added).

The standards required by 49 U.S.C. 5112(b) for establishing highway routing requirements for non-radioactive hazardous materials (“NRHM”) are set forth in 49 CFR part 397, subpart C, and apply to any designations established or modified on or after November 14, 1994. 49 CFR 397.69(a). A State, a political subdivision or Indian tribe must follow these standards, promulgated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (“FMCSA”), when establishing highway routing requirements for hazardous materials. The procedures and standards include, but are not limited to: notice to the public for comment (49 CFR §371.71(b)(2)); ensuring through routing between adjacent areas (49 CFR §371.71(b)(4)); allowing reasonable access to points of loading and unloading (49 CFR §371.71(b)(7)); a requirement for the state designated “routing agency” to ensure compliance with federal regulations, if a political subdivision seeks to create a NRHM route (49 CFR §371.71(b)(8)); conducting a complete analysis and review, including but not limited to effects on affected persons and localities, among other factors. (49 CFR §371.71(b)(9)). The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is considered a “State” for purposes of hazardous materials transportation law. 49 U.S.C. 5102(11)(a). The designated “routing agency” of the Commonwealth is the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. 49 CFR §397.65.

In similar cases, routing designations in a major metropolitan city were preempted because the city failed to comply with routing standards under 49 CFR Part 397. 71 Fed. Reg. 18137 (April 10, 2006) (finding that the local government of Washington, DC never conducted a routing designation analysis nor followed the appropriate and governing federal procedure for determining such route). FMCSA’s regulations require compliance with the highway routing standards in 49 CFR §397.71 when a state establishes or modifies a highway routing designation and maintains or enforces such designation. Id. at 18141 (emphasis added). Likewise, a City ordinance limiting trucks carrying hazardous materials to one street was found to be preempted when the city failed to comply with routing standards in 49 CFR Part 397. 66 Fed. Reg. 37260 (July 17, 2001)(finding a Morrisville, PA routing requirement for transportation of ‘dangerous waste’ was preempted).

As written, these three bills seek to eliminate MassDOT’s ability to oversee highway routing and conduct the analysis required under federal law and regulations to institute a non-hazardous material and a hazardous material truck route and, in effect, a truck ban on other roads. As an extensive federal process is already in place, it is unlikely that either of these bills would survive a federal preemption challenge. That said, it also remains unclear whether the regulation of interstate and intrastate hazardous material transportation inappropriately might infringe on the commerce clause of the United States Constitution due to the outright prohibition of through traffic on the roads contemplated in these bills.

On a state level, it is already well established that no municipality may regulate the use of motor vehicles on public ways without the approval of the MassDOT. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 18; See also Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, §19 (providing for regulation of trucks and trailers under the authority of MassDOT for purposes of creating truck exclusions). Of note, a local municipality’s regulations banning certain types of traffic in opposition to state law is invalid. American Motorcyclist Ass’n v. Park Comm. of City of Brockton, 412 Mass. 753 (1992)(finding local ordinance banning certain class of motor vehicles inconsistent with the Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, §18 which provides a comprehensive regulatory scheme.). While municipalities are given broad powers under Article 89 of the Massachusetts Constitution, this power is not so expansive as to permit local ordinances that regulate areas outside a municipality’s limits. Id. at 442. It is hard to imagine that banning access to a municipality or neighboring municipalities for purposes of deliveries is in line with existing Commonwealth policies that support cogent transportation planning.

TAM urges the Committee to closely examine any effect that routing restrictions or truck exclusions have on the seamless transport of goods from one location to another in the most efficient and safest manner. The TAM firmly supports the existing federal and state laws already in place. Truck route restrictions in one municipality often have a dramatic effect on vehicular traffic – truck or otherwise – in neighboring municipalities. Put simply, one municipality’s routing restriction not only dictates what may occur within its geographic boundaries, but what must occur outside of its boundaries. Accordingly, such routing decisions require more thorough study in accordance with federal law and regulations than that which is proposed in the legislation before the Committee – notwithstanding the numerous federal preemption and constitutional issues it raises.

I appreciate your attention to this important matter and respectfully ask that HB3027, HB3670 and SB2148 be held in committee for further study. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Kevin Weeks
Executive Director

legislation testimony

TAM Testimony – In opposition to House Bill 312, Model Carrier Reporting Requirement

/in /by

On July 26, Kevin Weeks, the executive director of the Trucking Association of Massachusetts, submitted written testimony in opposition to House Bill 312, An Act Relative to a Model Carrier Reporting Requirement.. The testimony is provided below, and a PDF is available for download.

For additional information, contact the Trucking Association of Massachusetts.

Download & Print Testimony

Honorable Tackey Chan, House Chairman
Honorable Paul Feeney, Senate Chairman
Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure
State House, Room 42
Boston, Massachusetts 02133

Dear Chairman Feeney, Chairman Chan and Members of the Committee:

On behalf of the over 250 member companies of the Massachusetts Motor Transportation Association (TAM), I am writing in strong opposition to House Bill 312, An Act Relative to a Model Carrier Reporting Requirement. This legislation, which contains many practical problems, is in direct opposition to federal law and accompanying case law.

As you know, House Bill 312 would require railroad companies, express companies, common or contract carriers, and firms or corporations that bring, carry or transport wine, beer or distilled spirits to file monthly reports with the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission. The legislation requires that these monthly reports to include information regarding the name and license number of the supplier, the quantity of wine, beer or distilled spirits shipped, the recipient’s name and address, and an electronic or paper form of signature from the recipient of the wine, beer or distilled spirits. (emphasis added). Finally, the legislation requires the preservation of such records for 3 years and includes staggered penalties for violations of the proposed law.

At the outset, House Bill 312 is likely preempted by a number of federal provisions governing the trucking industry. Federal law has preemption over state law where Congress has expressed a clear and manifest purpose in regulating a specific industry. Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947). Here, Congress has quite clearly chosen to regulate states’ abilities to regulate the trucking industry and the transportation of property. In particular, federal law prohibits a state from enacting or enforcing “a law or regulation or other provision having the force or effect related to the price, route or service of any motor carrier or any motor carrier, broker or freight forwarder with respect to the transportation of property.” 49 U.S.C. § 1450(c)(1). Moreover, direct freight shippers, such as FedEx and United Parcel Service (“UPS”), are also governed by a similar provision governing direct air carriers. 49 U.S.C. §4173(b)(4). As such, any state law that conflicts with the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution is null and void. Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725, 746 (1981).

House Bill 312’s restrictions on the acceptance of packages by delivery companies, conditions on the conduct of their drivers, and the imposition of significant costs and restrictions clearly affects “the price, route or service of any motor carrier or any motor carrier, broker or freight forwarder with respect to the transportation of property.” See 49 U.S.C. 1450(c)(1). Many of the actions listed in this legislation directly contradict federal law regulating interstate commerce. No motor carrier or delivery service will be able to incorporate the requirements of this legislation without having an effect on their pricing or service. As a result, House Bill 312 contravenes existing federal law and, if passed, will not survive a likely federal preemption challenge.

To this point, the United States Supreme Court has already decided that a similar, tobacco-related law in Maine, which required similar electronic signature verification and an accounting of package contents, violated federal law. Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transp. Assn., 552 U.S. 364 (2008). Much like House Bill 312, which both presumes the motor carrier knows the quantity of the alcohol in the shipped package and maintains certain state-specified information, the United States Supreme Court found that Maine’s similar requirement violated 49 U.S.C. § 14501 because the proposed tobacco law created:

“a conclusive presumption of carrier knowledge that a shipment contains tobacco in the specified circumstances. That presumption means that the law imposes civil liability upon the carrier, not simply for its knowing transport of (unlicensed) tobacco, but for the carrier’s failure sufficiently to examine every package. The provision thus requires the carrier to check each shipment for certain markings and to compare it against the list of proscribed shippers, thereby directly regulating a significant aspect of the motor carrier’s package pick-up and delivery service and creating the kind of state-mandated regulation that the federal Act [49 U.S.C. § 14501] pre-empts.” 552 U.S. 364, at 369-370.

Just like the proposed law invalidated by Rowe, HB312 requires transporters to report the quantity of alcohol being shipped and verify certain information is in accordance with state-mandated requirements. Notwithstanding any purported public health purpose, the court in Rowe specifically ruled that “to insist that the carriers provide a special checking system would allow other States to do the same. And to interpret the federal law to permit these, and similar, state requirements could easily lead to a patchwork of state service-determining laws, rules, and regulations.” Id. Finally, with respect to any public health argument offered by proponents of this legislation, the court in Rowe held that “the federal law does not create a public health exception, but, to the contrary, explicitly lists a set of exceptions that do not include public health. See, e.g., §§14501(c)(2) to (c)(3).” Id. at 371.

For the aforementioned reasons, the TAM respectfully requests that the Committee issue a study order for HB312. If the Committee wishes to attempt a redraft of this legislation, the TAM respectfully requests a role in such process to offer insight as to what is practicable and legal to require from motor carriers. Otherwise, any such state law may simply be reversed for failure to comply with judicial precedent surrounding 49 U.S.C. § 14501.

I appreciate your consideration of this important matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,

Kevin Weeks
Executive Director

1 This legislation presents many practical problems for trucking companies. First, there is no way for a motor carrier to actually know what the “quantity” of alcohol in a package is, the motor carrier does not assemble the package. Calculating the weight of a package does not reveal the quantity of alcohol in a package, it reveals the weight of the alcohol, the alcohol container, the packing slips and any internal package protection. Second, not every state requires a “license number for the shipper” to be either tracked or included as part of the receipt or shipping label. This would require companies to create an additional space in uniform packing slips and labels, not to mention, updating software systems, just to account for a Massachusetts specific requirement. Third, creating civil penalties on motor carriers if the shipped alcohol does not match the bill of lading is unfair. Motor carriers do not open packages to verify what the shipper asserts. Assuming there has been no in-transit incident (i.e. motor vehicle crash), if the packing slip does not match the contents of the package, it is the responsibility of the shipper to ensure that the contents and packing slips match. These practical problems further underscore the simple fact that the proposed law will likely impact the “price, service or route” of a motor carrier.

Enclosures

(a) Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transp. Assn., 552 U.S. 364 (2008)

(b) 49 U.S.C. § 14501