• WSTA Online Store
  • Drug Testing
  • WT News
  • Weekly E-newsletter
Western States Trucking Association (WSTA)
  • Link to X
  • Link to Facebook
  • Home
  • Membership
    • Online Membership Application
    • Printable Membership Application
    • Media Kit
    • Affiliate Member Directory
    • Staff Directory
    • WSTA Bylaws
  • Programs
    • WSTA Online Store
    • Health Benefit Options
    • 2290 Filing
    • Broker Bond
      • Get Your Broker Bond
      • Bonded Broker List
    • P-Fleet/WSTA Fuel Program
    • Equipment Financing Programs
    • Authority Help
    • Load Board Services
    • Scholarship Awards
    • DOT Random Drug Testing
    • DOT Physicals
    • Factoring
    • Michelin Tire Program
  • Gov Affairs
    • California Assembly Bill 5
    • FMCSA Drug & Alcohol Clearinghouse
    • Dynamex Decision
      • Donate to WSTA’s Legal Fund
      • Califonia Supreme Court’s Dynamex Decision – 4/30/2018, finalized 6/20/2018
      • WSTA’s Quick Reference
      • Dynamex Case History and Timelines
      • Dynamex Court Decision a Real Game-Changer
      • California Supreme Court: Everyone is Presumed to be an Employee
      • Meet WSTA’s Legal Team
      • F4A (Dynamex) Lawsuit
      • Cal Chamber Coalition Letter
    • DOT Meal & Rest Break Petition
    • Industry FAQ
    • CHP BIT Reform
      • CHP BIT FAQ
      • CHP BIT Information Bulletin
      • BIT Reform Bill Requires Display of Carrier Inspection Results
      • “Basic” Inspection of Terminal (BIT) Program Update
      • CHP Issuing US DOT Numbers
      • Non-Expiring Motor Carrier Permit
      • AB 529: BIT Reform Bill
      • BIT Program Under DMV
    • Regulatory
      • Hours of Service
    • Legislative
    • Legal
    • Labor and Wages
      • Meal and Rest Periods
      • DIR Registration
      • DIR Presentation – Public Works
    • Political Action Committee (PAC)
    • Environmental
      • Solid Waste Dump Truck Rules
      • CleanFleets – WSTA CARB Consultation
  • Subdivisions
    • California Concrete Pumpers Alliance (CCPA)
    • Coalition of American-Latino Truckers
    • Heavy Haul Conference
    • West State Alliance (OK Port)
  • Events Calendar
    • Board Meetings
  • Blogs
    • Lee Brown – Executive Director
    • Joe Rajkovacz – Contributing Writer
    • Sean Edgar – Environmental Policy & Media Advisor
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Archive for category: Blogs

Assembly Bill to Override CARB ACF Requirements on Private Contractors and Truckers Fails Before July Recess

July 2, 2026/in CARB Consultant, General News, Regulations & CARB

Sean Edgar, Environmental Policy and Media Advisor

 

On July 1, as the California Legislature prepared for recess, a last-ditch effort to exempt privately-owned contractor fleets from the Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) regulation failed. Assembly Bill 1436 (Avila Farias) failed to pass from the Senate Environmental Quality Committee on a 3-3 vote[1]. By virtue of this result, it appears unlikely that the California Legislature will intervene to put any guardrails around CARB’s plan to finalize the State and Local Government (SLG) amendments that first identified the contracting requirement language on April 2, 2026 and strengthened on July 1, 2026. The final Regulation is expected to become an official state regulation effective on or about September 1, 2026. Any privately owned fleet that contracts with public agencies should be prepared for a bumpy ride over the next nine months until the SLG reporting deadline and should brace for discussions with the contracting authorities on ZEV purchase that contractors will be required to make.

 

What we know about the ACF SLG implementation at this time is:

  1. All non-federal public agencies/municipalities/special districts must report ALL contractor vehicles >8,500 lbs GVWR of all fuel types into the agency’s CARB TRUCRS account by April 1, 2027. This includes all state agencies (like Caltrans), all 58 counties, 500+ cities and over 4,000 special districts such as water, power and sanitation districts), collectively “agencies.”;
  2. The agencies are responsible for their contractors to be in compliance with at least one of two compliance pathways;
  3. The “case-by-case” and “good faith effort” terminology used by CARB in their Guidance Document[2] is extremely concerning given that CARB has spent the past four years developing the Regulation.
  4. I serve on CARB’s ACF Outreach Committee so expect to be briefed as soon as CARB has additional information. My team has over 15 years of experience reporting into CARB TRUCRS and will be supporting the public agencies and affected contractors that we contract with.

 

WSTA continues to challenge the ACF SLG Regulation and that effort and an appeal for support can be found on the WSTA website.[3] Should you have any questions on that or the other aspects of this article, please contact Sean@Cleanfleets.net or (916) 718-7050.

[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1436

[2] https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/ACF-2025-Amendments-Guidance

[3] https://westrk.org/wsta-fights-carbs-acf-regulation/

WSTA Legal and Regulatory Update

May 18, 2026/in Front Page News, Government Affairs & Communications, Legal, Regulations & CARB
Read more

WSTA Comments to CARB on Proposed Amendments to Advanced Clean Fleets and Low Carbon Fuel Standard Regulations

April 20, 2026/in Blogs, Regulations & CARB

CARB is attempting to mandate private fleets that “contracted with a municipality via franchise agreement or long-term contract” comply with zero-emissions vehicle requirements.

INDUSTRY ALERT: CARB Pursues a “Green Contracting” Mandate to Force ZEV Purchases by All Private Fleets That Contract with Public Agencies

March 30, 2026/in CARB Consultant, General News, Regulations & CARB
Read more

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”

January 19, 2026/in Blogs, Government Affairs & Communications

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

October 3, 2025/in Blogs, Regulations & CARB
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!

August 20, 2025/in Regulations & CARB

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!

California Office of Administrative Law Rejects WSTA Petition Against CARB

August 20, 2025/in Regulations & CARB

On August 18, WSTA received a response from the AOL relating to our petition that the Clean Truck Partnership is an underground regulation (a position also enunciated in the 4 OEM complaint against CARB dated 8/11/2025).

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

August 5, 2025/in Regulations & CARB

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

June 30, 2025/in Blogs, Regulations & CARB

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
Page 1 of 212

Latest Blogs

  • Assembly Bill to Override CARB ACF Requirements on Private Contractors and Truckers Fails Before July RecessJuly 2, 2026 - 11:15 amby: Sean Edgar
  • WSTA Legal and Regulatory UpdateMay 18, 2026 - 2:37 pmby: Publisher
  • WSTA Comments to CARB on Proposed Amendments to Advanced Clean Fleets and Low Carbon Fuel Standard RegulationsApril 20, 2026 - 10:04 amby: Publisher
Member Login

BUSINESS UNITS

  • WSTA Online Store
  • Drug Testing
  • WT News
  • Weekly E-newsletter

Office Information

Hours
Monday – Friday 9am – 4pm (PST)

Phone
(909) 982-9898

Fax
(909) 985-2348

Corporate Office
334 N. Euclid Avenue
Upland, CA 91786-6031

Latest News

  • Assembly Bill to Override CARB ACF Requirements on Private Contractors and Truckers Fails Before July Recess
  • WSTA Legal and Regulatory Update
  • WSTA Comments to CARB on Proposed Amendments to Advanced Clean Fleets and Low Carbon Fuel Standard Regulations
  • INDUSTRY ALERT: CARB Pursues a “Green Contracting” Mandate to Force ZEV Purchases by All Private Fleets That Contract with Public Agencies
  • Caltrans Trucking Incident Summary Report (2024-2025)

WTN Magazine

Western Transportation News Magazine

Our Social Media Pages

Follow us on Twitter

Follow us on Facebook

© Copyright Western States Trucking Association (WSTA). All Rights Reserved
  • Link to X
  • Link to Facebook
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top