Doomed Underride Committee report flawed with bias and unauthorized recommendations

For Immediate Release

Doomed Underride Committee report flawed with bias and unauthorized recommendations

Washington, D.C. – Despite a year of effort, the Advisory Committee on Underride Protection (ACUP) failed to work in a collaborative and consensus-driven manner and therefore most recommendations from a final report should not be advanced. This was the message sent from OOIDA in a letter to the U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. The committee, established by the U.S. Department of Transportation, was charged with providing recommendations on regulations that would reduce underride injuries and fatalities.,

Here is the full letter:

July 10, 2024

 

The Honorable Sam Graves
Chair
House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure
2165 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell
Chair
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation
254 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

 

The Honorable Rick Larsen
Ranking Member
House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure
2163 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

 

The Honorable Ted Cruz
Ranking Member
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation
254 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

 

Re: Advisory Committee on Underride Protection Reports to Congress

Dear Chairman Graves and Chair Cantwell:

Section 23011 of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (Public Law 117-58) directed the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) to establish the Advisory Committee on Underride Protection (ACUP). ACUP conducted a series of public meetings on various underride topics with the goal of providing written advice and recommendations on safety regulations that can reduce underride injuries and fatalities, beginning in May 2023.

Over the course of these meetings, ACUP failed to work in a collaborative and consensus fashion. Safety advocacy representatives manipulated their numerical advantage in Committee membership and approved a motion to define “consensus” as a simple majority that minimized opposing viewpoints of other ACUP participants. OOIDA warned that granting such an advantage to biased advocates would jeopardize the panel’s ability to achieve its mission of developing a concise, data-driven report that garnered consensus support among participants and stakeholders. ACUP’s brazen decision to redefine consensus as a simple majority validated our concerns and ultimately doomed this advisory process. This action compelled the Committee to produce a majority report and a dissenting minority report along with individual letters of concurrence and/or non-concurrence rather than a single, unified document.

The majority report highlights these Committee members’ shameless intention to ignore the Congressional directive to achieve consensus agreement. The report states, “The majority of ACUP representatives agreed that in order to provide the most impactful advice and recommendations on “safety regulations to reduce underride crashes and fatalities relating to underride crashes” (per Sec 23011 of the IIJA) a simple majority standard for “consensus” was required.” The majority report goes on to include a wish list of cost-prohibitive, unfeasible recommendations that were approved by a slim majority of ACUP participants. These motions merited substantive opposition and should not be used as a foundation for policy development. Further, some sections of the majority report ventured beyond the authorized scope of the panel and often lacked empirical data or research to support inclusion.

Professional drivers hold a number of concerns about mandating underride equipment, specifically side underride guards. OOIDA has discussed operational challenges regarding rail-crossings, loading docks, and low ground clearances with Congress, as well as equipment damage resulting from curbs, roundabouts, speed bumps, and other highway features. These are all discussed at length within ACUP’s minority report. Additionally, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has considered numerous options involving side underride guards for decades, but has consistently concluded federal mandates would be impractical. Just last year, NHTSA estimated equipping new trailers and semitrailers with side underride guards would be six to eight times the corresponding estimated safety benefits, even when omitting all of the associated feasibility costs.

NHTSA should not advance potential new underride standards until further research, analysis, and testing is completed as directed in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The only recommendations that garnered true consensus support among panel members generally involved enhancing research and reporting. As such, these are the only elements of the final report Congress and USDOT should take seriously.

 

Thank you,
Todd Spencer
President & CEO
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc.

RECENT PRESS RELEASES:
Trucking, Energy, Farm Organizations File Lawsuit to Stop EPA’s Emissions Rule for New Heavy-Duty Vehicles
OOIDA Applauds Bipartisan Bill to Fight Freight Fraud
OOIDA Announces 2024 Scholarship Recipients

The post Doomed Underride Committee report flawed with bias and unauthorized recommendations appeared first on OOIDA.