TAM opposes Massachusetts House Bill 3653 & Senate Bill 2343
The following testimony was sent to the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Transportation. Our testimony strongly opposes House Bill 3653 and Senate Bill 2343, An Act Relative to Expanding Truck Safety Requirements.
Due to concerns about the proposed bill’s interaction with federal law, as well as practical concerns in the commercial transportation industry, given that the existing state program has not been implemented yet, we ask that this legislation be placed into study order.
A PDF version of the testimony is available.
Dear Chair Crighton, Chair Arciero and Members of the Committee:
On behalf of the Transportation Association of Massachusetts (TAM), I write in strong opposition to House Bill 3653 / Senate Bill 2343, An Act Relative to Expanding Truck Safety Requirements. Due to concerns about the proposed bill’s interaction with federal law as well as practical concerns on the commercial transportation industry given the existing state program has not been implemented yet, I respectfully ask that this legislation be placed into study order.
As drafted, this legislation requires that every motor vehicle used to fulfill a municipal, independent authority or private utility contract (i.e. gas, electricity, cable, etc.) in any manner and having a gross weight of more than 10,000 pounds be equipped with a lateral protective device, certain mirrors and a rear facing camera, as defined by section 1 of chapter 90 of the General Laws. While the legislation’s proposed standard applies to all trucks in “contract” with a municipality, independent authority or private utility, it also mandates that these same entities equip their entire fleet of vehicles accordingly for those vehicles purchased or leased after January 1, 2028.
At the outset, TAM has significant concerns about expanding a statewide program that has not been implemented yet. Under Chapter 328 of the Acts of 2022, the Commonwealth established a first-in-thenation statewide program requiring certain vehicles used by state contractors to be equipped with lateral protective devices, mirrors, and cameras. Scheduled for enforcement on January 1, 2026, this initiative is without precedent—no other state has attempted such a sweeping mandate. While a few municipalities have adopted similar ordinances on a much smaller scale, no comparable statewide program exists anywhere in the country. Because Massachusetts is breaking entirely new ground, transportation companies, state agencies, and regulators have had no opportunity to observe how such a program functions in practice. There is no real-world data to show which provisions work well, which need adjustment, or what unintended consequences may arise.
In addition, TAM has serious concerns that the newly proposed mandates in HB3653 / SB2343 raise potential legal issues under federal law, specifically 49 U.S.C. § 14501, which prohibits states from enforcing regulations related to the price, route, or service of motor carriers. Under this federal law, “a State, political subdivision of a State, or political authority of 2 or more States may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier … with respect to the transportation of property. 49 USC §14501(c)(1)(emphasis added). Without overstating the obvious, TAM’s members utilize motor vehicles impacted by this proposed legislation to deliver goods, people and other commodities throughout the Commonwealth. The proposed legislation will require transportation companies to modify their motor vehicles and trailers to include the mandated equipment. This will clearly have an impact on the price and services provided, meaning the new mandates would be likely preempted by federal law.
Further, it is worth noting that this legislation will impact both interstate and intrastate motor vehicles. As some of TAM’s members are from out-of-state, this requirement raises additional concerns about the impact on interstate commerce. For example, if a transportation company based in Connecticut, who is in compliance with federal and Connecticut law, works for a utility company and travels to a worksite in New Hampshire, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts cannot constitutionally require the transporter to equip itself with the required equipment when using the Commonwealth’s roads just to get to a worksite in another state. If allowed, it would defeat the very idea of federal oversight and assurance of unimpeded interstate transportation and commerce.
Finally, from a practical perspective, the statewide program has not been implemented yet. Every stakeholder needs time to assess what works well with the current program and what needs improvement. Already, TAM has had to push back against a clearly unconstitutional attempt in the regulations to extend the reach of the law to delivery vehicles and equipment suppliers who have no “contract” with the Commonwealth at all. While appreciative that MassDOT dropped that requirement, it shows some of the growing pains associated with implementing a statewide program – one that has not existed in any other state to date.
Given its unprecedented nature and potential federal preemption implications, it is critical that the current program be fully implemented, observed, and evaluated before any expansion or additional mandates are considered. Only through a measured, data-driven approach can Massachusetts ensure that safety goals are achieved without creating legal exposure, disrupting essential services, or unnecessarily increasing costs for the Commonwealth and its transportation community. Therefore, I respectfully request that House Bill 3653 / Senate Bill 2343 be placed into a study order at this time.
Thank you for 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
A downloadable PDF of this testimony is available.
