Linda Garner-Bunch

The federal government is moving forward with a plan to allow teenagers to drive 18-wheelers from state to state in what has become one of the most hotly debated issues in the trucking industry today. According to current law, truck drivers must be at least 21 to cross state lines, but the new apprenticeship program will let 18- to 20-year-old truck drivers deliver goods outside their home states. The apprenticeship pilot program was required by Congress as part of the infrastructure bill signed into law November 15, 2021. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) offered full details of the pilot program in late January. The program will be regulated through the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), which will screen the teens to make sure they don’t have any driving-while-impaired violations or traffic tickets. Dave Dein, a high school instructor in California who teaches teens how to drive 18-wheelers, said the apprenticeship program is something he has wanted to see for a long time. “A product that is manufactured/produced in a state can be driven all over that state by a CDL holder under the age of 21, but if that same product is sent to a different state, then it is considered interstate commerce and anyone who transports that product within the boundaries of the new state must be at least 21 years old,” noted Dein, who also serves as co-chair for the Next Generation in Trucking Association. In late 2021, Dein drafted a letter on behalf of the association to U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg in support of the apprenticeship program, writing: “The supply chain crisis requires new thinking. We believe a change in regulations would enable 18-year-old drivers a rewarding career, uphold safety and help America’s supply chains.” However, safety advocates point to data showing that younger drivers are involved in more crashes than older ones. They claim it’s not a good idea to let teenage drivers be responsible for 18-wheelers. The Truckload Carriers Association (TCA) and American Trucking Associations (ATA) both support the apprenticeship program, saying they believe it will help alleviate the shortage of drivers. The organizations have continually said the U.S. is running over 80,000 drivers short of the number it needs, as demand to move freight reaches historic highs. Under the apprenticeship program, younger drivers can cross state lines during 120-hour and 280-hour probationary periods — as long as an experienced CDL driver is in the passenger seat. Trucks used in the program must have an electronic braking crash-mitigation system and a forward-facing video camera, and their speeds must be limited to 65 mph. Once these young drivers successfully complete the probationary periods, they will be allowed to cross state lines on their own — but their carriers must monitor their performance until they are 21. No more than 3,000 apprentices can take part in the training at any given time. The FMCSA should reach out only to carriers with excellent safety records to take part in the program, according to the DOT. The program will run for up to three years, and each participating motor carrier must turn in a report to Congress analyzing the safety record of the teen drivers and making a recommendation noting whether the younger drivers are as safe as those 21 or older. In the future, Congress could expand the program with new laws. The test is part of a broader set of measures from the Biden administration to deal with the truck driver shortage and improve working conditions for said drivers. “This program creates a rigorous safety training program, requiring an additional 400 hours of advanced safety training, in which participants are evaluated against specific performance benchmarks,” said ATA’s Vice President of Workforce Safety Nick Geale, adding that the program will ensure the industry has enough drivers to meet growing freight demands. But Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety General Counsel Peter Kurdock shared that federal data shows that younger drivers have far higher crash rates than older ones. “This is no surprise to any American who drives a vehicle,” said Kurdock, stating that putting teens behind the wheel of trucks that can weigh up to 40 tons when loaded increases the possibility of mass casualty crashes, he said. Kurdock said the trucking industry has wanted younger drivers for years, and the industry used current supply chain issues to get the program into the infrastructure bill. He fears the industry will use skewed data from the program to push for teenage truckers nationwide. Reaction among current professional truck drivers about the program has been mixed. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) said it is concerned about the apprenticeship program on several levels. OOIDA President and CEO Todd Spencer outlined the association’s concerns in a January 12 letter to Thomas Keane, associate administrator for the Office of Research and Registration at the FMCSA. “We believe that licensing under-21 drivers for interstate commerce will lead to more crashes, injuries and fatalities involving large trucks, especially if (it) is implemented without establishing comprehensive safety oversight,” wrote Spencer. Additionally, Spencer wrote that the program falls short on its consideration of smaller carriers. “We expect it will be difficult for many motor carriers to afford insurance coverage for younger drivers,” he wrote. “Small-business motor carriers are especially unlikely to take the risk of insuring under-21 drivers when evaluating the costs and benefits to their operations.” Jo Franklin, who is a long-haul driver from Wisconsin, said he understands that there is a need for more truck drivers, but “I just don’t think a teenager can safely pilot a big rig across the country.” J.S. Williams has been a truck driver for more than 25 years and said she is fine with the proposal. “I mean, more power to them,” she added. “I think it’s great, and it will give a new generation of people a great career. I don’t understand why so many people are against this. I think it’s super.”

The U.S. government’s COVID-19 mandate for American workers has been overturned. However, the mandate was around long enough to stir up plenty of controversy, especially in the trucking industry. The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) withdrew the vaccination and testing emergency temporary standard January 26, after the Supreme Court blocked the requirements earlier in month. “Although Congress has indisputably given OSHA the power to regulate occupational dangers, it has not given that agency the power to regulate public health more broadly,” the court wrote in an unsigned opinion. Under the defunct rules, businesses with 100 or more employees had to ensure their employees were either fully vaccinated or that they submitted a negative COVID-19 test weekly in order to be allowed to enter the workplace. This would have covered some 80 million private-sector employees. The Truckload Carriers Association (TCA) and its members repeatedly called on the Biden administration to “heed our warnings regarding this mandate’s impact on the already constrained supply chain.” TCA said the mandate would have “undoubtedly ensure(d) the trucking industry loses a substantial number of drivers. These are the drivers the country is relying upon to deliver food and fuel, yet our national leadership has decided these needs must go unmet.” American Trucking Associations (ATA) President and CEO Chris Spear issued the following statement on the issue: “We successfully challenged this misguided mandate all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court because it was a clear overstep of OSHA’s authority, and because it would have had disastrous consequences for an already overstressed supply chain. The Supreme Court bounced it, and we are pleased to see the agency has now formally withdrawn it, sending this ETS to the dustbin where it belongs.” In an e-mail to members, TCA Vice President of Government Affairs David Heller said the association is continuing to monitor the issue. Heller praised the Supreme Court for their ruling against the vaccine mandate, adding that it “is a victory for the trucking industry.” Heller added, “It is imperative that the professional truck driver has the ability to safely, efficiently and effectively deliver our nation’s freight so that our economy and this nation can continue to thrive.” The Supreme Court has stopped the Biden administration from enforcing a requirement that employees at large businesses either be vaccinated against COVID-19 or undergo weekly testing and wear a mask on the job. While the Supreme Court has stopped the Biden administration from enforcing a requirement that employees at large businesses either be vaccinated, undergo weekly testing, or wear a mask while on the job, at the time of this writing, the court is allowing the administration to proceed with a vaccine mandate for most health care workers in the U.S. The court’s order, issued January 13 during a spike in COVID-19 cases, was a mixed bag for the administration’s efforts to boost the vaccination rate among Americans. Members of the trucking industry expressed a sense of relief following the Supreme Court’s decision. “This is a victory for the trucking industry as TCA, ATA, and many other partners incessantly voiced our concerns about the wide-reaching negative repercussions this mandate would have,” said Heller. ATA’s Spear called the ruling “a tremendous victory” and adding that the vaccine requirements would have interfered with individuals’ private health care decisions. “Trucking has been on the front lines throughout the pandemic — delivering PPE (personal protective equipment), medical supplies, food, clothing, fuel, and even the vaccines themselves,” he said. “Thanks to this ruling, our industry will continue to deliver critical goods, as our nation recovers from the pandemic, and we move our economy forward. The court’s conservative majority concluded that the administration overstepped its authority by seeking to impose the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) vaccine-or-test rule on U.S. businesses with at least 100 employees. More than 80 million people would have been affected. “OSHA has never before imposed such a mandate. Nor has Congress. Indeed, although Congress has enacted significant legislation addressing the COVID–19 pandemic, it has declined to enact any measure similar to what OSHA has promulgated here,” the conservative members of the Supreme Court wrote in an unsigned opinion. In dissent, the court’s three liberals argued that it was the court that was overreaching by substituting its judgment for that of health experts. “Acting outside of its competence and without legal basis, the court displaces the judgments of the government officials given the responsibility to respond to workplace health emergencies,” Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a joint dissent. When crafting the OSHA rule, White House officials said, they always anticipated legal challenges — and privately, some harbored doubts the rule could withstand them. The administration nonetheless still views the rule as a success, having already driven millions of people to get vaccinated and spurred private businesses to implement their own requirements, which are unaffected by the legal challenge. Both rules had been challenged by Republican-led states. In addition, business groups attacked the OSHA emergency regulation as being too expensive and likely to cause workers to leave their jobs at a time when finding new employees is already difficult. While the general mandate has been shot down, the vaccine mandate that the court will allow to be enforced nationwide covers virtually all health care workers in the country. It applies to health care providers that receive federal Medicare or Medicaid funding, potentially affecting 76,000 health care facilities as well as home health care providers. The rule has medical and religious exemptions. Decisions by federal appeals courts in New Orleans and St. Louis had blocked the mandate in about half the states. The administration already was taking steps to enforce it elsewhere. In the health care case, only justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito noted their dissents. “The challenges posed by a global pandemic do not allow a federal agency to exercise power that Congress has not conferred upon it. At the same time, such unprecedented circumstances provide no grounds for limiting the exercise of authorities the agency has long been recognized to have,” the justices wrote in an unsigned opinion, saying the “latter principle governs” in the health care cases. More than 208 million Americans — 62.7% of the population — are fully vaccinated, and more than a third of those have received booster shots, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. All nine justices have gotten booster shots.

Now that the bipartisan $1 trillion infrastructure bill has been signed into law by President Joe Biden, many in the trucking industry are asking, “What’s in it for us?” The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has released state-by-state fact sheets that highlight how funds will be spent. And while the trucking industry will certainly benefit from the dozens of new roads and bridges that will be constructed, along with repairs to older ones, there’s only one trucking-specific item laid out in the new law. It provides for an apprenticeship program for commercial drivers between the ages of 18 and 21. At the end of the program, certain drivers in that age group will be allowed to travel and deliver goods across the nation. Currently, these drivers are limited to driving within state lines. Full details about the program have yet to be released. As for one of the biggest issues facing the trucking industry — a serious deficit of safe parking spaces — there’s no mention of it at all. And that’s disappointing to industry leaders like Mark Walker, chairman and CEO of Missouri-based TransLand. “As one of the Top 5 industry-rated challenges voiced by professional drivers in the recent ATRI study, and an issue that has been Top 10 on company and truckers’ minds for years, it is more than disappointing that specific funds were not earmarked to meet this problem,” Walker said. “It’s unbelievable.” Overall, however, Walker said he is satisfied with the bill. “It means jobs,” he said. “It means improved efficiencies in trucking company operations, better driving conditions for professional drivers, and a reduction in bottlenecks that plague our industry. “Perhaps most importantly, it means improved safety on our nation’s highways for all that use the highway system, whether it’s to move freight or visit loved ones,” he noted. As for the future, Walker said Congress must keep tackling the critical supply chain issues facing the nation. It can do that by “creating incentives and removing roadblocks to our transportation system,” he said. “Let’s expedite allowing 18- to 21-year-olds to drive interstate, with proper training and coaching,” he stated, continuing, “I’d like to see additional investment in workforce development that targets transportation industry jobs, especially professional drivers and technicians. “I think we’ll need additional safeguards to protect the owner/operator system to allow it to thrive,” he added. “I believe Congress needs to create more work VISAs for immigrant workers that can meet our short-term and long-term capacity issues. Many other industries have thrived with this model. Trucking can too.” For now, government officials are focusing on how the influx of cash will create jobs, make America more environmentally friendly, and improve quality of life. “Americans rely on our transportation infrastructure every day — to get to work, school, loved ones, and to move goods across our economy,” said DOT Secretary Pete Buttigieg. “The once-in-a-generation investments in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will improve people’s lives in every state in the nation by increasing access to safe, clean, reliable transportation,” he shared. Looking at the DOT’s state fact sheets (available here), it’s easy to see how much the improvement money is needed. In California, there are 1,536 bridges and more than 14,220 miles of highway in poor condition, according to the DOT. Since 2011, commute times have increased by 14.6% in the Golden State, and on average, each driver pays $799 per year in costs due to driving on roads in need of repair. Based on formula funding alone, California would expect to receive approximately $29.5 billion over five years in federal highway formula funding for highways and bridges. On an average annual basis, this is about 44.1% more than the state’s federal-aid highway formula funding under current law. California can also compete for the $12.5 billion Bridge Investment Program for economically significant bridges and $15 billion of national funding in the law dedicated to megaprojects, which will deliver substantial economic benefits to communities. Additionally, California can expect to receive approximately $555 million over five years in formula funding to reduce transportation-related emissions, as well as about $631 million over five years to increase the resilience of its transportation system. In Pennsylvania, there are 3,353 bridges and more than 7,540 miles of highway in poor condition, according to the DOT. Since 2011, commute times have increased by 7.6% in Pennsylvania, and on average, each driver pays $620 per year in costs due to driving on roads in need of repair. Based on formula funding, Pennsylvania would expect to receive approximately $13 billion over five years in federal highway formula funding for highways and bridges. On an average annual basis, this is about 40.4% more than the state’s federal-aid highway formula funding under current law. Just as in California and all other states, Pennsylvania can compete for the Bridge Investment Program and megaproject funds. Pennsylvania can expect to receive approximately $265 million over five years in formula funding to reduce transportation-related emissions, in addition to about $301 million over five years to increase the resilience of its transportation system. During a recent New Hampshire stop, Biden said there were 215 bridges deemed “structurally unsafe” and 700 miles of highway in that state listed in poor condition, which he said costs residents heavily each year in gas and repairs. In addition to speeding repairs to roads and bridges, Biden touted the law’s investments in upgrading public transit and trains, replacing lead pipes and expanding access to broadband internet. The law, Biden said, is estimated to create an extra 2 million jobs a year, and he insisted it also would improve supply chain bottlenecks that have contributed to rising prices for consumers by providing funding for America’s ports, airports and freight rail. “This isn’t esoteric, this isn’t some gigantic bill — it is, but it’s about what happens to ordinary people,” the president said. “Conversations around those kitchen tables that are both profound as they are ordinary: How do I cross the bridge in a snowstorm?”

Finding a straight answer about why Congress can’t come to an agreement on legislation to fund improvements for the nation’s infrastructure is just about as difficult as finding a safe parking spot for a big rig. A lack of parking is one of the biggest issues facing the trucking industry today, but there is nothing in the current iteration of trillion-dollar Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that would improve it. President Joe Biden has said the United States must rebuild its infrastructure to withstand the world’s new era of ever-strengthening natural disasters. And, in doing so, the country must also address global warming, which, Biden said, is creating stronger storms, wildfires, and other dangers that contribute to deteriorating infrastructure. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has promised several different dates for a vote on the infrastructure bill, but all have come and gone. The Senate approved its version over the summer. A House vote was set for the bill at the end of September, but that didn’t happen because a consensus on the corresponding multi-trillion-dollar reconciliation bill has yet to be reached. Democrats said the postponement was only a temporary setback. White House press secretary Jen Psaki addressed the issue on October 8. “A great deal of progress has been made this week, and we are closer to an agreement than ever,” she told reporters. “But we are not there yet, and so, we will need some additional time to finish the work.” Of particular interest to the trucking industry would be the $110 million allotted for bridge and road improvements. But truck drivers are clear on what they need most — more parking. Erb Group’s President and CEO Wendell Erb said he still holds his commercial driver’s license and has made 15 trips from Canada into the U.S. and back over the past few months. Erb is a Canada-based transportation company with terminals in the United States. Parking in the United States is always a headache, according to Erb, who said he tries to find “mom and pop” truck stops because they are usually less busy. “While state rest areas are great and appreciated, they are not the place a driver wants to spend 10 hours off duty. All you have is a washroom and vending machines,” he explained. “My recommendation would be federal funds/grants to be allocated to privately owned truck stops to expand overnight truck parking.” The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) said truck parking is a long, hard-fought-for issue. “Despite the long history of broad, bipartisan support, numerous government studies and repeated pleas from truck drivers, Democrats on the (House Transportation and Infrastructure) Committee opposed efforts to address trucking’s No. 1 safety concern, the lack of safe parking,” said OOIDA President and CEO Todd Spencer said. “Truckers likely face another five years of a worsening crisis that jeopardizes their safety on a daily basis,” he noted. Truckload Carriers Association (TCA) Vice President of Government Affairs David Heller said TCA isn’t pleased with the bill, either. “Truck parking is priority No. 1 for most truckers out there,” he said, adding that passing a bill that would make parking easier for big rigs “would go a long way toward making the life of a trucker better. We will continue talking about this issue. Our day will come.” Some in Washington have tried to push legislation that would have dealt with the parking issue. United States Rep. Mike Bost (R-IL) introduced an amended bill to the House earlier this year that would have addressed truck parking, but it failed. Bost blamed Democrats. “Growing up in a family trucking business, I am all too familiar with the shortage of safe truck parking options along our nation’s highways,” Bost wrote in an e-mailed statement. “This is not only a safety concern for truckers, but also for the commuters who share the road with them,” he continued. “I have offered commonsense amendments three times in the House to provide funding to address this problem, and the Democrat majority has blocked them each time.” Bost added: “They have paid lip service to America’s trucking community and claimed to understand their concerns; yet this $3.5 trillion bill includes zero funding for truck parking. Not a penny. It just goes to show that they don’t care about this problem at all.” Biden, who has on many whistle-stop tours touted the infrastructure bill, hasn’t mentioned anything about the truck parking issue. His main talking points are that the infrastructure bill includes projects to help reduce greenhouse gasses and make America’s infrastructure stronger so that it can hold up to ever-worsening weather. More specifically, the bill includes: $10 billion to support access to affordable housing and enhance mobility for low-income individuals and residents of disadvantaged or persistent poverty communities. $4 billion for reduction of carbon pollution in the surface transportation sector — addressing the largest source of transportation greenhouse gas emissions. $4 billion to support neighborhood equity, safety, and affordable transportation access, including reconnecting communities divided by existing infrastructure barriers. $6 billion to advance local surface transportation projects. $1 billion to the Department of Transportation to support projects that develop, demonstrate, or apply low-emission technologies or produce, transport, blend, or store sustainable aviation fuels. $500 million to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) hazard mitigation revolving loan fund program; $425 million for grants for the construction, retrofit, technological enhancement, and updated planning requirements of state, local, Tribal, and territorial emergency operation centers. $9.5 billion to the Economic Development Administration to provide investments in persistently distressed communities, provide assistance to energy and industrial transition communities, invest in public works projects, and create regional hubs.• $1 billion for climate-resilient Coast Guard infrastructure. $2.5 billion to the Maritime Administration to support more sustainable port infrastructure and supply chain resilience. For now, the bill remains in limbo, and truck parking is stalled as a back-burner issue in Washington. As of this writing, no one is sure when — or if — a vote will take place. “Addressing the parking shortage would also have supported efforts to reduce carbon emission from the transportation sector,” added OOIDA’s Spencer. “Truck drivers waste approximately 56 minutes per day looking for parking, all the while needlessly burning fuel, emitting carbon and contributing to congestion,” he stated. “It’s tough to swallow the fact that in a year when Congress is authorizing hundreds of billions of dollars for infrastructure projects and highway safety programs, not a single penny was set aside for truck parking.”