Truckload Authority Staff

In some months, federal departments and agencies seem to slumber regarding regulatory matters. At other times, they buzz with activity. The latter has been the case since the last issue of Truckload Authority. Among other issues, the Department of Health and Human Services has released its proposal to regulate substance abuse testing, including allowing the use of hair as part of testing; but the trucking industry has some qualms about the proposal. On a positive note, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is looking at furthering flexibility in hours of service and wants to form an advisory panel of professional truck drivers. HAIR TESTING PROPOSAL FALLS SHORT The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in September published proposed mandatory guidelines for federal workplace drug-testing programs that include guidelines for hair testing. The guidelines would allow companies and organizations that follow federal rules and guidelines to collect and test a hair specimen as part of their drug-testing programs with the limitation that hair specimens be used for pre-employment and random testing. Under the guidelines, a federal agency choosing to test hair specimens must authorize collection and testing of at least one other specimen type that is authorized under the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs. The agency must also provide procedures whereby the alternate specimen is used in the event that a donor is unable to provide a sufficient amount of hair for faith-based or medical reasons or due to an insufficient amount or length of hair. The proposed guidelines require collection of an alternate authorized drug-testing specimen in addition to the hair specimen, either simultaneously (i.e., at the same collection event) or when directed by the medical review officer (MRO) after review and verification of laboratory-reported results for the hair specimen. This alternate specimen would be tested and reported in place of a donor’s positive hair specimen in certain circumstances, including when the hair test comes back positive and there is no medical explanation or admission of drug use. That’s where the rubber meets the road with respect to the trucking industry, said Truckload Carriers Association Vice President of Government Affairs David Heller. “What makes the guidelines problematic to everyone is when a driver tests positive with the use of a hair test and there is no given reason for the positive results,” he said, adding that reasons can range from a valid prescription to a driver admitting to the use of a controlled substance. “Regardless, if no medical reason exists outside of a prescription, and it most likely won’t, the positive hair test must be followed up with an alternative test, most likely a urine test,” shared Heller. “Everyone in the industry knows that hair testing will reveal a much greater history of drug use than a urine test will. The results of the alternative urine test will be the deciding result.” Trucking industry stakeholders have long contended that hair testing is more reliable in identifying substance abusers than the urine test. The Trucking Alliance last year conducted a study comparing pass/fail rates for urine and hair drug screens. Using 151,662 paired pre-employment urine and hair drug-test results from 15 different trucking companies, study results indicated that 949 applicants (0.6%) failed the urine test while 12,824 (8.5%) failed or refused the hair test. The Alliance extrapolated its results over a population of 3.5 million U.S. truck drivers and claimed that, if their results were generalized across the U.S. driver population, almost 300,000 current drivers would not be on the road if forced to pass a hair test. “A urine drug test misses as many as nine of 10 actual drug users, but a hair test captures them,” shared The Trucking Alliance Managing Director Lane Kidd. “So, it’s surprising this Administration proposes to tie the hands of an employer from disqualifying a person unless they fail both a hair and urine drug test. This proposal is unworkable and is why the Trucking Alliance is pursuing regulatory and legislative avenues to make sure hair tests are recognized and can rid the industry of drug impaired truck drivers.” In the proposed guidelines, HHS predicts the number of hair tests conducted will be minimal. Using data obtained from the Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs and HHS-certified laboratories, the Department estimates that 275,000 urine specimens are tested annually by federal agencies. HHS projects that approximately 1% (or 2,750) of the 275,000 specimens tested per year will be hair specimens and 89% (or 244,750) will be urine specimens, with the remaining approximately 10% being oral fluid specimens (27,500). In response to the HHS testing predictions, Heller noted that the roughly 1% of hair specimen tests that HHS predicts would only happen if this rule moves forward as written, referencing the fact that the rule provides little benefit to carriers that are achieving “such tremendous” results with this form of testing. Many could be reluctant to partake in such a program if positive hair test results are required to be supported by positive urine-based tests. “Time and again, trucking has represented itself as a zero-tolerance industry when it comes to drugs and alcohol in the workplace,” added Heller. “That being said, these proposed guidelines do very little support that position.” COALITION SEEKS OUSTER OF NEW HOS Just as the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) new hours-of-service (HOS) rules were set to become effective in late September, a coalition of three safety groups, along with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, asked a federal court to overturn the new regulations. The Public Citizen Litigation Group, which is representing Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways (CRASH), Parents Against Tired Truckers (PATT), and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, on September 16, filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that seeks to invalidate the new HOS rules. The petition alone did not prevent the new rules from going into effect as scheduled. “The FMCSA is supposed to protect truck drivers and the public from unsafe driving conditions, but this rule does the opposite and puts the health and safety of these workers at risk,” said Public Citizen Litigation Group Lawyer Adina Rosenbaum. FMCSA SEEKS COMMENTS ON MORE HOS FLEXIBILITY The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) announced in August that it is seeking public comment on a pilot program that would allow additional hours-of-service (HOS) regulatory relief by allowing participating drivers to pause their on-duty driving period with one off-duty period up to three hours. “Truckers are American heroes — they keep our supply chain moving; they carry essential goods we need to maintain our daily lives,” shared U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine L. Chao in a press release. “The department is seeking public comments on providing additional flexibility for truckers as they work to serve our country during this public health crisis.” Additionally, the new pilot program would allow drivers one off-duty break of at least 30 minutes, but not more than three hours, that would pause a truck driver’s 14-hour driving window, provided the driver takes 10 consecutive hours off-duty at the end of the work shift. Participation in this pilot program would be limited to a certain number of commercial driver’s license (CDL) holders who meet the criteria specified for participating. This pilot program — scheduled to operate for three years or less — would gather statistically reliable evidence to analyze the safety and feasibility of such a modification to HOS rules. Exploring opportunities to increase flexibility to a driver’s workday is an endeavor worth pursuing, said Truckload Carriers Association Vice President of Government Affairs David Heller. “Industry data, generated by electronic logging devices (ELDs) has shown that issues such as detention and congestion, as well as the search for viable and safe parking, are more than just rhetoric at this point,” he added. “Providing drivers with an opportunity to address these issues by allowing them the tools to be more flexible can aid in the improving safety performance of our drivers and allow them the chance to address each and every day as it presents itself. This pilot program, most likely the first of many, can explore this option and provide valuable feedback on the viability of such a provision.” The FMCSA stated in a news release that it wants to hear directly from drivers about the possibility and safety of a HOS pause pilot program. “The [FMCSA] remains committed to exploring ways to improve safety on our roadways, while increasing flexibility for truckers,” the news release said. In May 2020, the FMCSA published a final rule updating existing HOS regulations to provide greater flexibility, allow drivers more control over their workdays, and reduce regulatory burdens by $273 million annually. The updated HOS rules went into effect on September 29. CONTINUING RESOLUTION EXTENDS FAST ACT TO 2021 In the final hours of the 2020 fiscal year, President Donald Trump signed a continuing resolution (CR) passed by the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate that will fund federal government programs from the beginning of fiscal year 2021 on October 1 through December 11 in order to keep the government operating. As part of the CR, the current surface transportation authorization legislation — the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act — will be extended through September 30, 2021. An additional $13.6 billion was added to the Highway Trust Fund. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and 87 organizations urged congressional leadership to pass this type of “turn-key” bill in a September letter to Congress. AASHTO Executive Director Jim Tymon noted that a one-year extension of current surface transportation legislation gives state DOTs the “certainty” needed for planning and building projects through the 2021 construction season. “Ideally, if this extension can be provided with increased funding, our industry will be able to employ more Americans in the construction sector which, in turn, will bolster market certainty for the transportation industry in 2021, making businesses more likely to hire workers while investing in new equipment and technologies,” he said. According to an analysis by the AASHTO policy team, the FAST Act extension within the CR among other things, provides: Obligation limitation through December 11,estimated to be $9.1 billion for the Federal Aid Highway Program; An extension of FAST Act funding and provisions from fiscal year 2020 to all fiscal year 2021, including contract authority formula apportionments to states; and A $10.4 billion general fund transfer to the Highway Trust Fund’s Highway Account and a $3.2 billion transfer to the Mass Transit Account. FMCSA SEEKS COMMERCIAL DRIVERS FOR PANEL The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) recently accepted applications for its new commercial motor vehicle (CMV) driver subcommittee. This panel, which is a subcomponent of the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC), will provide direct feedback from commercial drivers to the FMCSA about important issues facing the driving community, such as safety, hours-of-service regulations, training, parking, and driver experience. “I think we can all agree that the most valuable tool in the trucking industry is the professional driver,” said Truckload Carriers Association Vice President of Government Affairs David Heller. “Allowing input and opinions from a demographic that actually operates in our freight delivery world on a daily basis, coupled with data that can reinforce their viewpoints, presents an opportunity to truly create a regulatory environment that addresses our industry’s most problematic issues. The FMCSA’s MCSAC will certainly benefit from the valuable insight that these drivers will provide in an effort to truly formulate substantial positions on the future regulations that could possibly be bestowed upon this industry.” The new panel will be comprised of up to 25 drivers from all sectors of the CMV industry — tractor-trailer drivers, straight-truck drivers, motor-coach drivers, hazardous-materials drivers, agriculture haulers, and more. FMCSA’s goal for the new driver panel is to capture the wide array of viewpoints and experiences within the CMV community. RULE WOULD CLARIFY ‘EMPLOYEE’ DEFINITION The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has proposed a rule that would clarify the definition of “employee” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as it relates to independent contractors. “The department’s proposal aims to bring clarity and consistency to the determination of who’s an independent contractor under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),” said U.S. Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia. “Once finalized, it will make it easier to identify employees covered by the Act, while respecting the decision other workers make to pursue the freedom and entrepreneurialism associated with being an independent contractor.” The DOL’s proposed rule looks to: Adopt an “economic reality” test to determine a worker’s status as an FLSA employee or an independent contractor. The test considers whether a worker is in business for himself/herself (independent contractor) or is economically dependent on a putative employer for work (employee); Identify and explain two “core factors” — the nature and degree of the worker’s control over the work and the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss based on initiative and/or investment. These factors will help determine if a worker is economically dependent on someone else’s business or is in business for himself/herself; Identify three other factors that could serve as additional guideposts in the analysis: The amount of skill required for the work; the degree of permanence of the working relationship between the worker and the potential employer; and whether the work is part of an integrated unit of production; and Advise that the actual practice is more relevant than what may be contractually or theoretically possible in determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. Truckload Carriers Association Vice President of Government Affairs David Heller said the proposed rule reinforces the goals of an industry that has long relied upon independent contractors in addition to employees. “The independent contractor business model is one that has been employed for decades in the truckload segment of our industry and represents an integral part of this nation’s freight delivery model,” noted Heller. “Some of our largest motor carriers on the highways today were created under this very premise, and TCA supports the notion proposed by the DOL that professional truck drivers should have the right to choose a career path that represents their pursuit of the traditional American dream.”

Trucks and trade top the list of articles in this edition’s Capitol Recap. Leading off is the effort to encourage Congress to suspend the federal excise tax on large trucks. Created in 2017 to help fund World War I, the tax now tacks on some $18,000 to the cost of a $150,000 tractor. As for trade, the United States, Mexico, and Canada have reached an agreement that supports North American manufacturing and mutually beneficial trade. Under the agreement, Mexico-domiciled trucks can still enter the United States under certain conditions. DEMOCRATS SEEK SUSPENSION OF FET Fifty-five Democratic members of the House of Representatives have called on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other congressional leaders to temporarily suspend the federal excise tax (FET) on the sales of heavy-duty trucks and trailers during the COVID-19 crisis. The July 20 letter, signed by Rep. Chris Pappas (D-NH-1), noted that the domestic trucking industry had played an important role in ensuring the delivery of vital medical supplies and essential consumer goods nationwide. The names of 54 other members of Congress were also listed on the letter. “Like other important industries that employ millions of Americans, the trucking industry has been impacted by the severe economic consequences of the pandemic,” the letter said. “To ensure this essential industry can more quickly recover, and to save jobs in the trucking industry, we urge you to temporarily suspend the 12% federal excise tax on heavy-duty trucks and trailers in future coronavirus recovery legislation.” The letter followed action taken by the American Truck Dealers (ATD), an offshoot of the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), to dedicate a week in June as “Suspend the FET Week.” ATD asked trucking industry stakeholders to advocate for the suspension of the heavy-duty trucks through 2021. ATD said the COVID-19 pandemic brought heavy-duty truck sales down 62.5% in May 2020 compared to the same time a year ago. The letter sent to Pelosi noted that throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, truck sales have plummeted below 50% of prior year sales. “Major truck and trailer investments are being delayed and deferred,” the letter noted. “Truck factories and showrooms have been closed, and thousands of employees have been furloughed. Immediate relief that extends until the end of 2021 is essential to supporting the workers in this industry. As a targeted, temporary stimulus measure, we urge that this relief be provided without hurting the already strained Highway Trust Fund.” The ATD said the FET has grown from 3% to 12% since it was instituted in 1917 to help fund World War I, and with many fleet tractors ringing registers for around $150,000, it tacks an extra $18,000 onto most Class 8 trucks. Suspension of the 12% FET on new heavy-duty trucks and trailers during this critical time could help fleets purchase new trucks and trailers; support U.S. truck and trailer manufacturing, supplier, and dealership jobs; and advance Congress’ goals of improving highway safety and reducing emissions, the letter said. “We urge you to suspend the FET until the end of 2021 in upcoming coronavirus legislation as the best and fastest way to help save or restore trucking-related jobs and jumpstart the economic recovery of this vital sector,” the letter concluded. NEW TRADE AGREEMENT NOW IN EFFECT On July 1, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) went into effect replacing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In a statement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) said the agreement will facilitate more efficient trade, stronger enforcement, and more economic opportunities for North America. The USMCA includes updated rules regarding origin, customs administration and trade-facilitation provisions, intellectual property rights protections, and fair labor conditions. “The USMCA completely replaces NAFTA and marks the beginning of a new era of American prosperity,” said CBP Acting Commissioner Mark Morgan. “Thanks to President Donald Trump’s leadership and his ability to secure the bipartisan support of Congress, the USMCA delivers a tremendous win for American businesses and consumers.” CBP Office of Trade Executive Assistant Commissioner Brenda Smith described the new trade rules as “the new global standard,” adding that USMCA will help CBP carry out its mission of trade facilitation and enforcement. “CBP will continue to work closely with the trade community, our U.S. government partners, and our Mexican and Canadian counterparts to ensure a smooth transition from NAFTA and support the prosperity of the U.S. economy, American workers, and public safety,” she said. In the months before the implementation of USMCA, CBP has worked to prepare the U.S., Canada, and Mexico for the transition. In March, CBP launched the USMCA Center, an online resource that provides an overview of the agreement along with information about regulations and implementation, compliance guidance, and more. Compliance guidance is available in a variety of mediums, including videos, webinars, and fact sheets. The USMCA Center also offers a chatbot to help users find answers to common questions. CBP’s Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) launched two working groups to hear concerns and recommendations from the private sector on USMCA implementation and the specific new criteria for the automotive rules of origin. USMCA establishes a federal review process that would restrict unsafe carriers from operating beyond dedicated Border Commercial zones. In addition, the agreement requires the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) to review actions taken by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to ensure that each Mexico-domiciled motor carrier with operating authority complies with federal motor carrier safety laws and regulations. The USDOT is required to conduct a survey of all existing grants of operating authority to, and pending applications for operating authority from, all Mexico-domiciled motor property carriers for operating beyond the Border Commercial Zones, including OP-1 (MX) and OP-1 operating authority. USMCA is expected to increase annual U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico by a combined $33 billion above the current NAFTA baseline. The agreement is also expected to increase the U.S.’s gross domestic product by $68 billion, stimulating broad sectors of the economy that the trucking industry services, such as agriculture and manufacturing, according to published reports. MEXICAN TRUCKS CAN STILL ENTER U.S. UNDER USMCA For years after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect on January 1, 1994, the trucking industry in the U.S. worried about one particular provision. NAFTA called for the lifting of restrictions prohibiting Mexican carriers from operating in the U.S. Canadian carriers were already allowed to operate within the U.S. while Mexican carriers were only allowed to operate in clearly defined “commercial zones” near U.S.-Mexico border crossings. Since NAFTA was designed to lift trade barriers between the participating countries, it was a given that Mexican trucks would soon be granted the same privileges in the U.S. The treaty specified access to Mexican trucks by the year 2000. It didn’t happen. For Mexican carriers to obtain U.S. authority, they needed to meet the same requirements as U.S. carriers. This included things like meeting insurance requirements, a driver-licensing system comparable to the U.S. CDL system, adequate drug-testing and accident-reporting programs, vehicle inspection standards, and more. Reciprocation was also a possible issue. The problem wasn’t U.S. carriers having the authority to operate in Mexico. Trucking infrastructure in Mexico, the network of fueling, parking and repair facilities, was simply inadequate for U.S. carriers to operate. There was opposition from trucking groups, too, such as the Teamsters Union and the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), who expressed concern about loss of U.S. driving jobs. Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and safety advocates like Public Citizen also opposed allowing Mexican trucks on U.S. highways, creating an odd confederation on the same side of the issue. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) struggled to comply with the provisions of NAFTA while ensuring that Mexican carriers met the same safety standards as U.S. carriers. One year after NAFTA went into effect, the U.S. refused to lift restrictions on Mexican trucks, angering Mexico’s government and threatening the NAFTA agreement. NAFTA remained in effect while the dispute was argued. In 2001, a NAFTA dispute settlement panel found the U.S. to be in violation. The following year, the FMCSA put in place an interim final rule allowing cross-border operation. Opponents took to the courts to have the FMCSA rule set aside. The issue was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld the rule. In 2007, Congress required that a pilot program be implemented to ascertain safety and compliance levels of Mexican carriers. Two years later, however, Congress voted to remove funding for the pilot program. In 2011, with a new Congress and president in place, another pilot program began. In 2015, data accumulated through the pilot program was reported to Congress, which gave the go-ahead for FMCSA to begin issuing operating authority to Mexican carriers. The U.S. Inspector General reported that the program results were invalid due to the low number of participating carriers, but that the carriers that did participate had safety records comparable to U.S. carriers. Only a few dozen Mexico-based carriers received authority to operate in the U.S. Finally, after two-and-a-half decades, NAFTA was replaced by the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which has been characterized as “NAFTA 2.0.” The final ratification of the agreement took place in Canada on March 13, 2020, and it went into effect on July 1. Like NAFTA, the USMCA allows Mexican carriers to obtain operating authority in the U.S. but allows the U.S. to cap the number of Mexican carriers granted authority and to halt granting of such authority if it is determined the practice is causing material harm to U.S. interests. AASHTO: CURRENT ROAD PROJECTS IN PERIL The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has urged congressional leadership to consider that state departments of transportation (DOTs) across the country need an “immediate infusion” of at least $37 billion to prevent disruptions to planned transportation projects, keep workers employed, and enable the nation’s mobility network to fully support economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. While AASHTO said the near-term financial need for state DOTs remains the same in fiscal year 2020 — roughly $16 billion — data compiled over the last three months indicate state transportation revenues will not fall quite as much over the longer-term as initially projected at the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak. “This change in estimated loss is mainly due to a less severe outlook for FY 2021 from our members compared to earlier this year,” noted AASHTO’s 2019-2020 President and Missouri Department of Transportation Director Patrick McKenna, and the group’s Executive Director Jim Tymon, in the letter to Congressional leaders. “That being said, the recovery period is now expected to be longer than originally anticipated,” they added, pointing out that the requested $37 billion in emergency funding “will prevent further disruptions to planned transportation projects and allow state DOT employees and transportation construction workers essential to planning and delivering these projects to remain on the job.” However, overall state transportation revenue losses will still be extremely steep over the next five years, McKenna and Tymon emphasized. “With millions of Americans following ‘stay-at-home’ orders, many state DOTs are facing severe losses in revenues, including dedicated revenues on which state transportation programs heavily rely,” they said. “Projections continue to show decreases in state motor fuel tax and toll receipts as nationwide vehicle traffic reduction bottomed out at about 50% during the height of the pandemic,” McKenna and Tymon added. “As a result, the ability of state DOTs to carry out their core functions, including capital construction programs, is threatened.” AASHTO and 39 other transportation organizations also made a similar appeal to Congressional leaders in a separate letter. “The need for federal funding for state DOTs remains urgent,” that coalition of groups said in their letter. “[That] funding will also preserve the core capabilities of state DOTs that are critical to implement a robust, bipartisan surface transportation reauthorization bill, which can serve as a platform for national economic recovery and growth.” For example, on July 16, the Wyoming Department of Transportation announced that it would delay 11 construction projects and review local transportation programs due to “long- and short-term funding issues” caused by reductions in fuel tax revenues, petroleum market revenues, and other fees — with the COVID-19 pandemic creating “additional” budgetary impact. According to Wyoming DOT Director K. Luke Reiner, that “delay” will reallocate about $436 million over the next six years from new capacity improvement efforts to asset maintenance projects. The Oregon Department of Transportation also reported similar fiscal issues resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that its July revenue forecast now estimates the Oregon’s State Highway Fund will lose $170 million in revenue for 2020 and 2021. TRUMP LOOSENS NIXON-ERA ENVIRONMENTAL LAW President Donald Trump has said he is rolling back a foundational Nixon-era environmental law that he says stifles infrastructure projects, but which is credited with ensuring decades of scrutiny of major projects and giving local communities a say. The National Environmental Policy Act, which became law in 1970, changed environmental oversight in the U.S. by requiring federal agencies to consider whether a project would harm the air, land, water, or wildlife, and giving the public the right of review and provide input. Trump said the new final rule will promote the rebuilding of America. “Together we’re reclaiming America’s proud heritage as a nation of builders and a nation that can get things done,” said Trump. Major changes to the law include limiting when federal environmental reviews of projects are mandated and capping how long federal agencies and the public must evaluate and comment on any environmental impact of a project. Opponents criticize the efforts as a cynical attempt to limit the public’s ability to comment on proposed projects under one of the country’s most well-established environmental protection laws. “This may be the single biggest giveaway to polluters in the past 40 years,” said Center for Biological Diversity Government Affairs Director Brett Hartl. The Center works to save endangered species. Trump has highlighted his deregulatory push as a way to boost jobs and cut the red tape that can often delay projects, particularly the construction of new infrastructure. On the other hand, environmental groups believe the regulatory rollbacks threaten the country’s natural resources and make it harder to fight global warming. With the congressional infrastructure bill seeing no traction in the Senate, the president is relying on his deregulatory push to demonstrate progress. “We won’t get certain projects through for environmental reasons. They have to be environmentally sound,” said Trump. “But you know what? We’re going to know in a year. We’re going to know in a year and a half. We’re not going to know in 20 years. Opponents of the changes believe they will have a disproportionate impact on minority communities as more than 1 million African Americans live within a half-mile of natural gas facilities. According to a 2017 study by the Clean Air Task Force and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, these communities will face a cancer risk above the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) level of concern from toxins emitted by those facilities. “Trump is taking away the last lines of defense for front-line communities and continues to demonstrate a total disregard for our environment and for those demanding racial and environmental justice,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). WATCHDOGS QUESTION YRC LOAN Congressional watchdogs are questioning the federal government’s decision to award a $700 million coronavirus relief loan to a struggling trucking company on grounds its operations are critical for maintaining national security. YRC Worldwide provides transportation and logistics services, such as delivering food, electronics, and other supplies to military locations around the country. The U.S. Department of Defense is a major YRC client. The department, however, sued YRC in 2018 for overcharging the government for freight carrier services and making false statements. Under terms of the coronavirus relief loan, U.S. taxpayers, through the Treasury Department, will take a 30% stake in the company. YRC, based in Overland Park, Kansas, will be required to maintain its payroll at the current level of an estimated 30,000 trucking jobs, and to limit executive compensation, dividend payouts and share repurchases. The Congressional Oversight Commission also recently reported that taxpayers appear to be at risk of losing money on the investment. YRC has had financial problems for years, well before the onset of the pandemic, and has been at risk of bankruptcy, the report said. The money is scheduled to be repaid by September 2024. The congressional monitors said they questioned the decision to deem YRC’s business critical to national security and the process for reaching that decision. It is the first and only loan made under the national security portion of the treasury’s corporate aid program, which has made several billions of dollars in loans to major airlines and smaller air carriers. The national security section, with an available pot of up to $17 billion, had been expected earlier this year to be earmarked for hard-pressed aircraft maker Boeing or for General Electric. To qualify for the national security aid, companies should be performing under defense contracts of the highest national priority or operating under top-secret security clearance. YRC apparently did not meet either of the criteria but qualified under a “catch-all” provision allowing a recommendation and certification from the secretary of defense or the director of national intelligence to be sufficient. The five-member oversight commission was appointed by congressional leaders of both parties to monitor the spending of some $2 trillion in economic aid enacted by Congress this spring and directed by the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve.