Organizations representing the trucking industry have provided input to the U.S. Department of Transportation about what is needed in the next National Freight Strategic Plan.
The groups focused on issues including the lack of truck parking, the condition of the nation’s infrastructure and drug testing.
In July, the DOT gave the public 30 days to weigh in on priorities for an updated National Freight Strategic Plan. The previous version of the plan was issued in 2020.
The comment period ended Thursday, Aug. 14. According to Regulations.gov, 66 comments were submitted. The commenters included the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association and the American Trucking Associations.
OOIDA comments
OOIDA, which represents small-business truckers, asked for a National Freight Strategic Plan that creates a level playing field for owner-operators and small motor carriers.
“We urge DOT to consider improvements to the nation’s transportation system that would increase efficiencies and alleviate costs for small-business truckers,” OOIDA wrote in comments signed by President Todd Spencer. “The NFSP must address deteriorating highway infrastructure that results in lost productivity and compensation for drivers. The plan must also prioritize fixing the nation’s truck parking crisis and resolve other institutional barriers such as excessive detention time, inadequate driver training and escalating freight fraud that can be mitigated through more practical federal policies.”
When OOIDA filed its comments for the plan in 2020, the Association said the DOT must prioritize fixing the nation’s truck parking crisis. Five years later, OOIDA said the issue remains an urgent one.
“Addressing the truck parking shortage is a critical highway safety priority,” OOIDA wrote. “With research indicating there is a single parking spot available for every 11 trucks on the road, the lack of available spaces forces truckers to choose between parking in a potentially unsafe location or continuing to drive while they feel fatigued or are out of available time under federally mandated hours-of-service regulations. This not only potentially jeopardizes their own safety but also the well-being of the motoring public.”
OOIDA continues to advocate for passage of the Truck Parking Safety Improvement Act, which would provide $755 million to expand truck parking capacity.
“Despite nearly a decade of unified advocacy among industry stakeholders, funding for truck parking projects remains limited and must be increased to finally solve the truck parking crisis,” OOIDA wrote.
OOIDA’s full comments can be found here.
ATA’s comments
ATA, which represents large carriers, told the DOT that it must prioritize supply chain efficiency.
“Federal freight policy must focus on removing physical and regulatory barriers to moving freight safely and efficiently. This means prioritizing investments to ensure that the highway system operates more efficiently and establishing a regulatory regime that does not unnecessarily impede the supply chain,” ATA wrote.
Like OOIDA, ATA said that the lack of truck parking is not only a problem for individual truck drivers but a general safety issue.
However, ATA is on the opposite side of the argument when it comes to the inclusion of additional drug testing methods.
“With assistance from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, DOT should move forward with authorizing and implementing oral fluid and hair testing, which can close critical detection gaps and enhance post-accident investigations where impairment may be a factor,” ATA wrote.
In July, OOIDA told a Senate committee that there are many concerns regarding the validity of hair testing. Instead, urinalysis remains the proven method.
“There are still significant debates and unanswered questions concerning the use of hair testing,” OOIDA Executive Vice President Lewie Pugh wrote in his submitted testimony. “We do know hair testing can lead to false positives because of environmental contamination and the interference of cosmetic treatment on the analysis of hair. Variances in hair types have also posed difficulties in standardizing drug testing. Hair shape, size, color, texture, formation and other qualities vary by race, sex, age and position on the scalp. Not surprisingly, all these limitations have led to discriminatory employment practices.”
ATA’s complete comments can be found here. LL
Credit: Source link
