Archive for category: Blogs

Governor Newsom Press Office: “The Facts are Plain and Simple — California Commercial Driver’s License Holders Had a Fatal Crash Rate Nearly 40% LOWER than the National Average”

/in ,

Where did that stat come from?

The “whizzing match” between Governor Newsom and the Trump Administration (specifically Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy) over crashes involving California commercial drivers license (CDL) holders has exploded into a disgusting display of political gamesmanship.

After deadly crashes involving some California licensed CDL holders, U.S. DOT demanded California quit issuing non-domiciled CDL’s (which the state ignored) and begin enforcing English language understanding regulations at roadside inspections (which California until recently had refused to do).

In both instances California stands to potentially lose billions of dollars in federal aid for highways for lack of compliance and even have its CDL program decertified which would mean CDL holders in California could not leave the state. In response to U.S. DOT’s findings after an investigation into California licensing practices, the Governor’s office issued the quote in our article title to defend the state’s non-compliance with certain federal requirements. NOTE: On January 7th, U.S. DOT did withhold $160 million from California for non-compliance (read here).

 

Q: Where did they come up with those “facts” and is it true?

While the state may have some more up-to-date data than is publicly available, the latest data on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) website involving fatality rates by state for large trucks is from 2022. It does show California with a fatality rate of .14 per million Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) compared to a national fatality rate of .19 VMT. Which is actually 25% LOWER than the national average (we’ve included the graph from FMCSA), not 40%.

To achieve a fatality rate of 40% below the national average, California’s rate would need to be at a .11 VMT currently. It’s possible since the state has in the past been one of the best nationally in achieving a low truck involved fatality rate. However, without crying foul on the Governors Press Office, lets analyze this deeper. It is more complex than the Governor cares to admit nor for the media simply reporting statements without verifying them – as happens all the time these days.

 

Why is VMT so important?

California always records the second highest truck involved fatalities by state in the U.S., second to the state of Texas – which is a function of California’s large population and center of much economic activity and by extension large truck population.

In 2022 California had 436 truck involved fatalities compared with Texas having 810. The jurisdiction with the lowest number was, and always is the District of Columbia with 3 fatalities. Mostly, smaller northeastern states like Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Vermont record the lowest fatality VMT rates simply because the states are smaller and don’t have the same volume of truck traffic as larger states.

By using total vehicle miles traveled by trucks in each state you can come up with statistic that regardless of the year or the economy gives you a fair way to compare fatal truck crashes between jurisdictions and during different various economic cycles  – and see which state is doing a decent job in highway safety. The key metric used is total vehicle miles traveled divided by number of fatalities.

 

Historical truck fatality comparisons for California

YEAR FATALITIES MILLION VMT FATALITY RATE
2011 296 320,784 .09
2012 277 326,272 .08
2013 269 329,534 .08
2014 324 332,857 .10
2015 313 335,739 .09
2016 341 340,115 .10
2017 383 343,862 .11
2018 399 348,796 .11
2019 429 340,836 .13
2020 427 299,812 .14
2021 447 310,823 .14
2022 436 315,244 .14

 

In attempting to make assessments comparing years, you must remember that in 2011 and 2012, we were still emerging from the “Great Recession” with lower economic activity thus historically lower VMT for trucks. 2020 and 2021 however show something changed; we were in the midst of the COVID lockdown with again lower VMT and economic activity but the number of truck involved fatalities continued to increase. In fact, the only 40 percent number we can validate is that is the percentage increase in truck involved fatal crashes inside California since 2011. The trend ever since emerging from the Great Recession has unfortunately been upward as illustrated in the graph above.

California’s ranking among the states has stayed relatively steady either in the 11th or 12th spot nationally even when tied with another state. In terms of comparing California to other large population states California has held steady in its ranking having one of the lower fatality rates based on VMT. As in California, across the country, truck involved fatality rates have increased.

 

Factors going into California’s CMV lower fatality rate

Congested urban centers: California metropolitan areas, specifically the LA Basin and Bay area are always at the top of having the most congested highways in the world. Congested highways also mean very low average speed which does translate into lower crash severity when they happen.

Statewide 55 MPH speed limit for trucks: While not liked by many truckers, the states speed limit for trucks does lower crash severity when one occurs. Of course, it does “likely” lead to an increase in rear-end crashes which are often deadly to car occupants and CHP is shy about releasing stats on how often this is associated with truck crashes in California. In comparison, Texas with over 800 truck involved fatal crashes has posted speed limits – which includes trucks at 80 and 85 mph.

Enforcement: The California Highway Patrol has if not the most, it is at the top of states in enforcing commercial vehicle regulations especially its notorious reputation for inspecting trucks. California has always enforced aggressively on truck operators in the state, even before many other states began doing the same. All this despite U.S. DOT pulling roughly $40 million from California for enforcement activities because the state refused to enforce English sufficiency standards at roadside. This is changing.

 

“Lies, damned lies, and statistics” 

That quote often used by Mark Twain describes the power of using statistics to bolster weak arguments. When the Governors office claims California CDL holders have a much better crash rate when compared to national average, there is an element of Mark Twain’s statement in what is being said.

The feds compile their safety statistics state-by-state from actual accident reports, so the data presented only tells the story of what happens within a single state, it doesn’t tell whether licensed drivers from any particular state represents a higher crash risk when operating outside of their home state.

Re-read the section previous to this one, California enforces aggressively on trucks. The other “factoid” important to know when looking at trucking crash data is that the vast majority of California’s commercial drivers only operate within the state – they don’t leave California – ever. This means they are always under the watchful eye of CHP and its aggressive enforcement practices. DMV data shows a massive number of commercial vehicles registered to operate within the state, only a small percentage operate outside the state.

DRIVER’S LICENSES ISSUED – 690,676 Commercial (Class A or B)

VEHICLES – CVRA trucks – 500,411 (applies to commercial operated vehicle over 10,000 pounds) SE plated vehicles are excluded.

Non-CVRA trucks – 5,507,246

CA based IRP trucks – 118,520

California has a relatively small number of trucks registered to operate outside the state through IRP (yes, you can make an occasional journey using trip permits if you have federal operating authority) so the crash statistics are greatly influenced by this and of course out-of-state trucks operating in California.

What is missing in all data is the crash rate of drivers operating outside their home state but involved in fatal crashes – this is the current focus of U.S. DOT even though data sets on this type of statistic are not publicly available. Maybe its higher than average, but maybe its not, we just don’t know, and it would be useful if U.S. DOT published that type of stat to show if certain states are really having a problem with driver licensing. This isn’t as difficult as it sounds since all accident reports do include the drivers license number from the state of issuance.

 

Conclusion

The “whizzing match” between Newsom and Trump serves no useful purpose if “highway safety” improvements are the goal. The statistical evidence does show California’s truck involved fatality rate has increased dramatically – over 40 percent in an eleven-year time span, it just keeps increasing as it is with other states. Clearly, something is wrong and while politicians produce “stats” often without context, there is a major problem and anecdotally many in trucking know it’s the caliber (or lack thereof) of drivers entering the industry, driver training and an ineffectual driver licensing system handing out CDL’s like candy to anyone.

CARB Factually Misrepresents Adoption Rate of Commercial ZEV’s

/in ,
Major Media “Carry its Water” by Regurgitating Half Truth

If you go to CARB’s own website and search on “ZEV trucks” you will get this headline, “1 in 6 new trucks, buses, and vans in California are zero-emission.”

That news release is from CARB and dated June 6, 2024 but on September 23, 2025 CARB doubled down on misinformation with this new announcement, “Nearly 1 in 4 new trucks, buses and vans in California go zero-emission, 2 years ahead of schedule.”

Of course, all the major media outlets just regurgitate whatever CARB spews without any meaningful “fact checking.” It’s either by design or a lack of journalistic integrity. Either way, its an example of why American’s trust in the media to report news “fairly and accurately” has dropped to its lowest level in five decades!

What is important to note about CARB’s misleading headlines is when it says “trucks” virtually everyone immediately thinks of a “big truck,” or more accurately Class 7 & 8 vehicles. When you take a deeper dive into what is being sold versus the hype guess what? CARB includes in its numbers Class 2b sales which are vehicles such as Tesla’s Cyber truck (probably the ugliest truck ever built) and Ford electric pick-ups and vans. CARB counts as “trucks” vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds.

In 2024 ACT sales data shows a total of 131,552 “trucks” sold in Classes 2b-8. When you distill the numbers further the total “truck” ZEV sales accounted for 30,026 of the 131,552 sold statewide. Of the “truck” ZEV’s sold, only 1,887 were over 14,000 pounds. Class 7 & 8 trucks only accounted for 422 of that 1,887 number. We could toss out percentages, but we think you get the point.

Another data point CARB doesn’t seem to have – maybe they do but hide it – is how many of the actual Class 7 & 8 ZEV trucks sold (virtually all with huge public subsidies) are even in service? WSTA has only a handful of members who took the chance and procured these types of trucks, with one minor exception, we know all of the trucks are parked collecting dust right now. There are multiple reasons for this, and CARB staff has chosen to act as if their mantra is “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” when it comes to heavy-duty ZEV trucks.

For example, WSTA has one member with 10 Nikola trucks and all have been parked since March, only 8 are actually operational (the other two are down for lack of parts availability since Nikola went bankrupt) yet for the 8, there is no available fueling source (hydrogen) for them (now).

We “get” that small pick-ups and vans usually being operated short distances are probably “form fit” for ZEV adoption – their duty-cycle requirements are different than “large trucks” and recharging doesn’t present the same issues as with Classes 7 & 8.

The “ripple effect” of CARB’s Advanced Clean Fleets (ACT) rule that mandated truck OEM’s sell ever increasing percentages of ZEV’s was OEM’s having to limit the ability of California dealers to sell trucks with diesel engines. Of course, CARB tries to dispute this – they explain it away as the OEM’s fault (they can always buy emissions credit from CARB). Yet new Class 7 & 8 truck sales in California have basically collapsed 75% because of the ACT rule (which did get an EPA enforcement waiver under Biden Administration).

Everyone acknowledges newer diesel-powered trucks (even natgas) emit far less emissions than older trucks. How much better could California’s air quality goals have been met if CARB didn’t once again screw around in a marketplace they clearly don’t understand (same thing happened with the Truck & Bus regulation).

All you really need to know is when CARB touts EV “truck” sales numbers they are engaged in purposeful deception.

A great example of the aforementioned deception is an email CARB sent out on the 20th of October inviting fleet owners to a webinar hosted by Cal Fleet Advisors to tout “how using zero-emission trucks in your daily operations can benefit your business.” Sure.

The email states “Cal Fleet Advisor is a free technical assistance and advisory program that has supported nearly 1,000 medium- and heavy- duty fleets in California.” Yet we already know heavy-duty trucking isn’t buying what they’re selling from sales numbers.

CARB Truck Partnership Under Attack…and Rightfully So!

/in

The following is a chronology of several recent actions and related attachments with additional details concerning the CARB Clean Truck Partnership (CTP)…arguably a preempted, underground agreement. The following are recent events related to this scheme.

On August 7, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a cease-and-desist order to Daimler to order them to abandon CARB combustion engine regulatory standards in light of the Congressional Review Act (CRA), 3 resolutions of June 12 (attached, “Exhibit B”)

On August 11, engine/truck manufacturers Daimler, Paccar, Volvo and International sued CARB in order to nullify the Omnibus, ACT and Clean Truck Partnership (attached, OEMs v. CARB Complaint)

On August 15, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) sues CARB saying that CARB’s regulations are preempted by federal law (3 files attached, two referred to as “Complaint in Intervention” for light duty and heavy-duty CARB rules)

On August 18, the California Office of Administrative Law (AOL) declined to hear/respond to the WSTA petition concerning the CTP many issues including underground regulation claims filed June 18.

Likely, much more to come!

Read the 17-Org Industry Letter to the Engine Manufacturers Association – 8/4/2025

/in

Seventeen businesses, environmental advocates and public health organizations on Monday sent a letter to North America’s truck and engine manufacturers urging them to remain committed to the Clean Truck Partnership (CTP) agreed to in 2023… There is, however, debate over the validity of the agreement now that the Advanced Clean Trucks and CARB’s Omnibus regulations have been revoked by Congress. The Western States Trucking Association in June filed a petition with California’s Office of Administrative Law (OAL) challenging the CTP.

 

The Trump Train Proceeds on a Collision Course with CARB

/in ,

The Republican majority in Congress and the return of Trump has CARB and its allies continuing to backpedal while simultaneously deploying teams of lawyers to defend a ZEV mandate on the trucking industry. The week before Trump’s inauguration, truckers breathed a big sigh of relief to hear that CARB withdrew its federal application to implement […]

Read more

Despite CARB ACF Withdrawal Multiple Emissions Lawsuits and Challenges Continue

/in ,

The trucking industry at large breathed a sigh of relief to hear that CARB withdrew its federal application to implement the Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) Regulation on January 13, 2025. The outgoing Biden Administration answered the following day that they considered the matter closed, indicating a desire to leave little opportunity for the next administration to take up action on the matter. This month I look into the reasons for the ACF withdrawal, explain why WSTA continues to fight for justice, and summarize several key programs yet to be affected by the change in Washington DC.

Why did CARB blink? CARB approved the ACF in April 2023 and submitted the required application to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in November 2023. The federal Clean Air Act allows California to apply for a “waiver” of federal requirements in order for California to enforce emissions standards more stringent than federal law. According to former CARB Chair Mary Nichols the CARB decision to withdrawal the ACF application was influenced by legal authority concerns and an incoming Trump Administration that is hostile to CARB’s actions.

Portions of ACF remain: The CARB withdrawal does not mean that ACF is dead and buried, however, as it stands as an official California state regulation until further notice and the “State and Local Government” portion of the Regulation will be enforced according to CARB. At a minimum, this means that WSTA members as residents and ratepayers will face rate hikes for electricity, water and sanitation services. All public agencies in the state, regardless of size, must procure only zero emissions vehicles in 2027 and beyond. Due to the known high upfront costs and dwindling state budget funding to fund incentives one can reasonably predict that increased rates will be needed. As an example, one Central Valley city estimated a $20 million price tag to convert its refuse collection fleet to ZEVs and the City has no solid funding plan to deal with CARB’s ACF mandate.

A second consideration is the likely effect on public works contracting. Many WSTA members derive revenue from public works projects ranging from pothole repair, local road and sewer projects to major critical infrastructure projects. When ACF affected agencies (who are currently left twisting in the wind by a broke Sacramento) must redirect it limited capital resources to ZEVs one can predict that public works projects will be delayed, downsized or dropped. Finally, there are reporting deadlines and requirements for drayage, “high priority,” and federal fleets for which the enforceability must be resolved. As of this writing, CARB has not revealed is next moves or whether it will try to replace ACF with some other regulatory scheme in the near future. Some observers suggest that CARB may time another ACF in anticipation of a more friendly post-Trump in 2028 or beyond. Due to the remaining uncertainty in how these portions of ACF will affect WSTA members, there have been no compelling reasons to drop the active litigation against CARB at this point.

Summary of WSTA Litigation: Western States Trucking Association vs. Steven Cliff (CARB Executive Officer) was filed on July 21, 2023 in Fresno County Superior Court.

The suit requests a temporary and permanent injunction that would halt the implementation of the Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF). The causes of action relate to 1) inadequate CEQA analysis; 2) improper cost analysis; 3) lack of scientific review; 4) procedural violations by removing documents from the public record; and 5) a post-Regulation notice that affects how WSTA members could be roped into buying electric trucks even if they are below 50 trucks or $50 million in gross receipts annually. CARB retracted its notice in October 2024, but the remaining four issues remain. There have been extensive negotiations to resolve these issues outside of Court however this has not been successful to protect WSTA’s interests.

Four separate federal actions have been filed in Washington DC during 2023-2024. These relate to EPA waivers that allow CARB to enforce electric truck manufacturing mandates (“ACT”), Emissions Warranty and Airport Shuttle Bus operator requirements to buy only ZEVs, federal Tailpipe Standards and Greenhouse Gas vehicle standards. These actions have been slowly moving through the federal court system.

Summary of Endangerment Finding: In 2009 the EPA determined that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare. In response to President Trump’s executive orders on his first day, on February 26, 2025, “[t]hree people granted anonymity to discuss the action said EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has recommended to the White House that the agency overhaul the finding, which underpins all Clean Air Act climate regulations.” Should the Trump Administration remove or modify the finding there could be additional legal authority problems with EPA waivers already granted or future EPA waivers sought by CARB.

Key CARB regulations remain: Neither the Omnibus Low N0x, Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) nor the Clean Truck Check (CTC) are impacted by the recent CARB ACF withdrawal. Omnibus and ACT are playing out negatively for small to large truck purchasers. Most truck dealers are told by their OEMs that they must sell ZEVs in order to sell diesel or natural gas trucks. So, the customer is told that in order to buy a new CARB-certified engine for use in California that they must buy a ZEV for each three to ten internal combustion engines they buy, or they cannot do the transaction. Unless or until the OEMs rework their “Clean Truck Partnership” agreement on Omnibus and ACT with CARB this situation is expected to continue. Work arounds such as purchasing trucks outside of California then importing later may be uncertain as well. On the CTC front, CARB’s “VIS” database continues to be a challenge with paying the new annual emissions fee of $31.18 per truck and then implementing the confusing twice per year testing schedule for 2025 and 2026. Expect four times per year testing in 2027.

Why we fight: CARB’s ACF withdrawal, while a welcome delay, does not resolve WSTA’s concerns about CARB. There is nothing to say that CARB will not simply wait a year or two and time a new ACF to coincide with the January 2029 exit of Donald Trump. Legal challenges to CARB’s zero emission vehicle mandates are moving closer to the courtroom. Since the COVID-era push to outlaw internal combustion of petroleum fuels, WSTA has participated in the federal and state legal proceedings in which CARB passed several zero emission mandates and the prior EPA rubber stamped them. WSTA should view the legal challenges as the opportunity to cut the head off the snake that has been biting you for decades by restricting CARB’s state and federal authority in a lasting way through victory in the courtroom.

WSTA has joined a coalition of like-minded associations and companies in petitioning the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for judicial review of the CARB Omnibus Regulation approval given by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Our filing follows EPA’s action in December by the outgoing Administrator to allow CARB to enforce the tighter truck engine emissions standards from 2024 onwards. The Petitioners are asking the Court to find EPA’s decision unlawful and remove the EPA approval, rendering the Omnibus Regulation invalid.

WSTA Sues Over Low NOx Waiver

CARB’s Regulation was adopted in 2020 and established a reduction of oxides of nitrogen (N0x) by over 80% between the 2024 and 2027 engine model years. The most recent estimates of the cost impact that I have heard is that new engines this year will cost between $10,000 and $25,0000 each. Many engine manufacturers have removed popular engine models from the available line up and there are caps on the amount of CARB-certified and those that are not CARB-certified. To further complicate matters, the sales of internal combustion engines in trucks >8,500 lbs. GVWR is also tied to the number of zero emission trucks sold. In light of the low customer demand and the withdrawal of the CARB Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) the sales of new internal combustion trucks have plummeted due to CARB’s regulatory house of cards. More stringent engine standards are not working to bring new engines into California due to CARB’s failure to fix foreseeable problems that WSTA and other warned them about.

The timeline to hear the petition is not clear at this time. The Petition was also filed on behalf of the California Asphalt Pavement Association, California Fuels and Convenience Alliance, Associated General Contractors of New York, the New York Construction Materials Association and HR Ewell Inc, a privately held trucking company in Pennsylvania. Stay tuned to WTN as this story unfolds.

Questions may be addressed to Sean@CleanFleets.net or (916) 718-7050.

CHP Issues Final Rule Mandating ELD’s

/in ,

On November 13th, the California Highway Patrol dropped their final rule mandating Electronic-on-Board (ELD) recorders for hours-of-service compliance for California only motor carriers. The effective date of the rule for effected motor carriers is January 1, 2024.

As soon as the final rule was published, the Association began to receive calls from members who were being spammed by ELD providers and being told there were no exemptions or exceptions to the mandate, and they had to install an ELD in their truck(s). To be nice, we’ll say any ELD company saying that to you is lying. We dealt with the same issue when the federal mandate went into effect five years ago.

As we reported in the Summer issue of WTN, many of our members will be unaffected by this mandate. If you operate under California’s short-haul exception (100 air miles/12 hour on-duty period), an ELD is not required.

If you exceed the short-haul limitations, you are required to complete a paper log (record-of-duty status or RODs) for that day. You are allowed to switch to paper RODs, but for no more than 8 days in any 30-day period without needing an ELD.

Other notable exceptions to the mandate are:

  • The driver is in a driveaway-towaway operation, as defined in Section 303 of the Vehicle Code, in which the vehicle being driven is part of the shipment being delivered
  • The vehicle being driven was manufactured before model year 2000, as reflected in the vehicle identification number (VIN) and as shown on the vehicle’s registration (this is mostly useful to owners of trucks that have a CARB low-use exemption)

If you have any questions related to this mandate, call the office (909-758-5060) and ask to speak to Brenda or Joe.

If you are required to have an ELD, the WSTA is recommending you contact a reliable supplier such as our affiliate Matrack.

California Petitions DOT to Reverse Previous Determination Prohibiting the State from Enforcing its Unique Meal & Rest Break Rule on Interstate Drivers

/in ,

After years of our members being legally extorted by trial lawyers for actual and alleged non-compliance with California meal & rest break (MRB) rules, in 2018, the WSTA was the first organization to petition the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to pre-empt California from enforcing its MRB rule on truck drivers subjected to hours-of-service rules. We were quickly joined by the Specialized Carrier & Rigging Association with a petition and finally by the American Trucking Association.

The effort was partially successful in that FMCSA ultimately pre-empted California from enforcing its MRB rule, but only on drivers subjected to the hours-of-service rule issued by the federal government. After a Teamsters legal challenge in the Ninth Circuit to the pre-emption determination, the federal court upheld FMCSA’s decision.

Late this past summer, in what can only be called a purely political move by the agency, they issued a Federal Register Notice essentially begging for petitions to reverse its previous decision.

As of the publication date of WTN, the State of California issued the following press release giving FMCSA what it asked for. The WSTA will be engaged on this issue once the feds publish this petition (and very likely others) asking whether the petition(s) should be granted.

PRESS RELEASE Attorney General Bonta Defends California’s Meal and Rest Break Rules for Commercial Drivers

Monday, November 13, 2023

Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta, in partnership with the California Labor Commissioner’s Office, today announced the filing of a petition seeking a waiver of federal preemption determinations that prevent California from enforcing its meal and rest break requirements for motor vehicle drivers in California. Federal regulations by the Federal MotorCarrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) generally permit commercial drivers to drive eight hours without a break. In contrast, California law generally requires 30-minute meal breaks during each five hours of work, and 10-minute rest breaks for every four-hour period. In 2018 and 2020 under the Trump Administration, FMCSA ruled that California’s rules to protect the safety of drivers and the general public were preempted by the federal rules and were therefore unenforceable. FMCSA recently initiated a petition process for states to request a waiver from this ruling. If FMCSA grants the waiver, California can resume enforcing its meal and rest break rules on behalf of commercial vehicle drivers.

“Meal and rest breaks are essential for the welfare of our workers, but are especially important for commercial drivers,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Fatigued driving is especially deadly in the trucking and bussing industries and contributes to accidents on California’s roadways. California’s meal and rest break rules protect drivers and promote public safety by providing drivers with adequate time to rest before they become overly fatigued. FMCSA’s Trump-era preemption decisions endanger the health and welfare of California’s workers. All workers deserve a work environment that affords them safety and security.”

In the Petition sent to FMCSA, the Attorney General and the Labor Commissioner highlight that enforcement of California’s meal and rest break rules will have a significant positive impact on health and safety of drivers, have not and will not exacerbate the truck parking shortage in California, and have not and will not weaken the national supply chain or otherwise burden interstate commerce.