DOT's deregulation barrage raises compliance concerns for trucking
WASHINGTON — The axing of dozens of regulations this week by the U.S. Department of Transportation has raised concerns from trucking industry experts concerned about compliance and safety.
While the majority of the 52 deregulatory actions affecting the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Highway Administration provide 60-day comment periods to allow for public protest, most if not all will likely be taken off the books.
'Big government has been a big failure,' said Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, commenting on the changes in a press statement on Thursday.
'Under President Trump's leadership, my department is slashing duplicative and outdated regulations that are unnecessarily burdensome, waste taxpayer dollars, and fail to ensure safety. These are common sense changes that will help us build a more efficient government that better reflects the needs of the American people.'
Of the 20 actions taken at FMCSA, two are final rules and 18 are proposed rules that would either amend or rescind current regulations.
P. Sean Garney, a trucking regulatory expert and co-director at Scopelitis Transportation Consulting, singled out several of FMCSA's deregulatory actions for potential compliance issues.
For example, while Garney considers reasonable a proposal to eliminate a requirement that truck drivers keep a hard copy of the truck's electronic logging device user manual on board, 'what's a little tricky and what carriers will need to take note of if these are finalized as written is that it only applies to the user manual,' he told FreightWaves in an email.
'Drivers are still required to carry (or store electronically) the instructions for how to transfer data at roadside and the instruction sheet for how to deal with a malfunction, not to mention blank logs. It'll be important for motor carriers to make sure drivers have access to it either way. It's like your car user manual, you don't need it until you need it.'
FMCSA also proposes revising a requirement that motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers sign and return a completed roadside inspection form to their issuing state agency. Because not all states require that they be returned, FMCSA wants the form-return requirement to apply only to carriers obligated to do so by their state – and that could be a problem, Garney cautioned.
'While many states do not require these inspection reports to be signed and returned … others still require them,' he said. 'If removing the requirement is the best course of action, I wish FMCSA would have pulled the trigger for all states, rather than leave us guessing on who requires it be returned and who doesn't. Figuring this out and adhering to it is a burden.'
FMCSA's proposal to rescind a manufacture certification label requirement for rear impact guards on truck trailers has a potential enforcement issue lurking, according to Garney.
Motor carriers have balked at the requirement because the labels can become worn and illegible.
'What's interesting about this one is that this notice is just half the story,' he said. 'Removing this from [FMCSA's regulations] will help out carriers at roadside as inspectors won't be able to write the violation … but the requirement still lives in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, which are controlled by NHTSA.'
In the event of a failure of a rear guard that has a worn label, 'who will be left holding the bag? Who's in charge here?'
The list of deregulatory actions at FMCSA has raised red flags at the Truck Safety Coalition, which advocates for truck crash victims and their families.
'Certainly time has rendered some regulations obsolete,' acknowledged TSC Executive Director Zach Cahalan in an email to FreightWaves.
However, 'TSC remains concerned FMCSA is rushing to fulfill campaign pledges and failing to uphold its historically high burden to prove any deregulatory changes will not adversely impact safety.'
As an example, Cahalan pointed to FMCSA's proposal to rescind a regulation requiring retroreflective sheeting on semitrailers and trailers (which improves their visibility at night) manufactured before 1993.
'FMCSA declares 'it believes' trailers manufactured prior to 1993 are not in use, but fails to quantify this assertion in any way, shape, or form,' he said.
Regarding eliminating the ELD manual requirement, 'it's probably a good idea to keep ELD manuals in rigs as there is no reason to believe all drivers receive sufficient training in their use and operation, something our victims can tragically attest to.'
He emphasized that driver fatigue – which the ELD mandate is supposed to help address – 'remains a chronic problem in the industry and is frequently cited by the NTSB as a contributor in most truck crashes.'
DOT takes heat for drug testing certification delays
Lawmakers look at expanding FMCSA's power to rein in cargo theft
Trump's NHTSA nominee raises concerns among truck safety advocates
Click for more FreightWaves articles by John Gallagher.
The post DOT's deregulation barrage raises compliance concerns for trucking appeared first on FreightWaves.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
37 minutes ago
- Forbes
Opportunities And Headwinds Facing America's Emerging Public Companies
Cody Slach, Senior Managing Director at Gateway Group. While tech giants and trillion-dollar valuations dominate financial headlines, an entirely different group of companies continues to build, innovate and hustle for market share: small-cap public companies. Typically defined as businesses with market capitalizations under $2 billion, small-caps make up the backbone of American entrepreneurship on the public stage. And yet, they often remain overlooked by institutional investors, underfollowed by analysts and overburdened by regulation. Their journey is one of high potential but also high pressure. The Upside Of Being Small (And Public) Large corporations may have scale, but small-caps have speed. Without layers of bureaucracy, they can pivot faster in response to market signals. In a landscape increasingly defined by disruption, agility can be a competitive edge. Small-caps often trade at valuations that leave room for substantial upside. A successful product launch, strategic acquisition or entry into a new market can deliver meaningful growth—something harder to achieve in mature, large-cap firms. Many small-caps don't go public with dreams of becoming the next Apple—they go public to build credibility, attract capital and ultimately be acquired. For investors, that often means a built-in exit strategy with potential upside. In small-cap companies, leadership is closer to the business and often more accessible to investors. There's less institutional inertia and more incentive to perform. The Challenges Are Real—And Growing Public companies face mounting compliance costs, and for small-caps, these are felt more acutely. For example, in 2004, U.S. companies with revenues over $5 billion spent 0.06% of revenue on SOX compliance, while companies with less than $100 million in revenue spent 2.55%. With lower trading volumes and limited analyst coverage, small-cap stocks are more vulnerable to price swings. That can deter institutional capital and discourage long-term investors during market downturns. Small-cap firms often struggle to attract top-tier talent, particularly in competitive sectors like AI or biotech. Access to capital is similarly constrained, especially in tighter interest rate environments or risk-off markets. Policy Could Help—Or Hurt There's bipartisan support for revisiting regulations that disproportionately burden small public firms. Reforms could include simplified reporting for companies under a certain revenue threshold or extending the 'emerging growth company' benefits of the JOBS Act. But nothing moves quickly in Washington, and without relief, some promising firms may opt to stay private indefinitely. The Risks Can Be Justified But if investors get it right, the returns can outperform. One way to look at this is the standard deviation of daily returns—i.e., the amount prices move away from the mean. Let's take a look at that for two indices that are synonymous with small-cap and large-cap—the Russell 2000 and Russell 1000 indexes, respectively. According to LSEG, since inception, the standard deviation for the Russell 1000 was 17.54% vs. 20.01% for the Russell 2000. While those numbers may seem small, they measure a large sample size, with outliers to the upside and downside. Picking the right stock in the Russell 2000 can generate substantial alpha. While large-cap tech giants dominate headlines, small-cap public companies (again, market caps under $2 billion) play a vital yet often overlooked role in the U.S. economy. These firms offer agility, growth potential and acquisition appeal, making them attractive to investors seeking outsized returns. Their leadership is typically more accessible and accountable, and they often trade at valuations that allow for substantial upside. However, small-caps also face significant challenges: disproportionately high regulatory compliance costs, liquidity issues, limited analyst coverage, difficulty attracting talent and restricted access to capital. Policy reforms could ease some of these burdens, but progress is slow. Despite higher volatility, as shown by the Russell 2000's greater standard deviation compared to the Russell 1000, smart investors can achieve meaningful returns by picking the right small-cap stocks. Forbes Business Development Council is an invitation-only community for sales and biz dev executives. Do I qualify?
USA Today
39 minutes ago
- USA Today
What parts of your Fourth of July barbecue will cost more, less? We explain.
Your Fourth of July barbecue essentials are going to be slightly more expensive this year – that is, if you even plan to celebrate. The Wells Fargo Agri-Food Institute analyzed costs for hosting a classic Fourth of July gathering for 10 people and found that consumers can expect to pay $130 for the food and beverages. That's up 2.2% from the cost for the same gathering a year ago. USA TODAY got an exclusive look at the report. But in another survey by Coupon Follow, only 1 out of 3 people plan to celebrate Independence Day at all. How much will the typical Fourth of July cookout cost? Wells Fargo took a look at the costs for hosting the classic Fourth of July gathering using data from NielsenIQ, which tracks food scanned at retailers across the U.S. While the cost of $130 for a gathering of 10 people is 2.2% higher than last year, the devil is in the details, said Wells Fargo: in particular the costs of beef and eggs are higher this year. The menu priced includes barbecued chicken breasts, beef sliders, hotdogs, fresh fruit, vegetable platter, potato salad, corn bread, cake, apple pie, ice cream, beer, wine soda and flavored sparking waters. Here's how those main menu items fare: How are costs for Fourth of July side dishes? Here's how side dishes will fare: Price increases?: How will Trump's tariffs affect grocery store prices? We explain. Why 1 in 3 don't plan to celebrate Americans' plans for the holiday depend on their age, location, and how they're feeling about the country in 2025. Close to half of Coupon Follow survey respondents say they won't celebrate Independence Day this year because they aren't 'feeling patriotic' and 44% said they feel 'disconnected from American culture right now.' National pride has dropped for some respondents, with 22% saying they feel less patriotic now than they did in recent years. However, 11% said they feel more patriotic, and 40% said their feelings about the holiday have not changed. A quarter said the holiday 'doesn't feel inclusive' to them. Price is a factor for 10% of respondents who say they can't afford to celebrate this year. The top reasons Americans gave for celebrating on July 4 are that it brings people together, they enjoy fireworks or summer events, and it is tradition. Younger generations are more likely to participate in this year's festivities. Only 31% of Gen Z and Millennials say they are opting out, while 38% of Gen X and 38% of Baby Boomers say they plan to sit out celebrations, the survey found. The holiday is most popular in the Midwest, where only 26% of Americans plan to skip it. At 40%, southerners are most likely to opt out. In between is the West and Northeast, where 31% say they don't have plans to celebrate. How much Americans plan to spend celebrating About 1 in 6 Americans say they will spend significantly less on the holiday this year due to inflation and rising costs. Clay Cary, senior trends analyst at Coupon Follow, told USA TODAY inflation is a large reason why 2025 appears to be a less busy year for July 4 travel. Only 9% of survey respondents plan to head out of town. For those who are celebrating, Coupon Follow estimates Americans will spend an average of $200 on travel, $100 on fireworks, $80 on food, $50 on drinks, and $40 on decorations. The survey found American's most popular cost-savings measures this year will include bulk shopping or using coupons, skipping decorations, and hosting a smaller event than usual.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Former In-N-Out worker claims his natural hair got him fired
A former African-American In-N-Out employee is suing the company for discrimination and termination for his natural hair, according to court documents. Per the court documents, the former employee, Elijah Obeng, a California native, claims that he was discriminated against and terminated for his natural hair and texture. In the suit, Obeng claims he suffered emotional distress, reputational harm and loss of employment. Obeng is seeking $3 million in damages and $200,000 in earnings he would have made during the duration of his firing and beyond. In-N-Out declined to comment to Fox Business as they do not comment on ongoing litigation. Obeng and his lawyer have yet to respond to initial requests for comment from Fox Business. 4 In the suit, Obeng claims he suffered emotional distress, reputational harm and loss of employment. Los Angeles Times via Getty Images According to the court documents, Obeng worked at the West Coast fast-food burger chain from his high school graduation in 2020 up until his termination in 2024. According to the court documents, Obeng went to work with his natural hair, following the guidelines of In-N-Out's grooming and uniform policy. That policy is defined in the court documents as clean-shaven and hair kept under a hat. 4 Obeng is seeking $3 million in damages and $200,000 in earnings he would have made during the duration of his firing and beyond. ETIENNE LAURENT/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock As Obeng's hair grew longer, he was instructed to either cut his hair or alter it to follow the uniform policies. The court documents say that Obeng then braided his hair to follow guidelines, but was told by management that his sideburns, which were part of his hair, needed to be cut. Obeng claimed to have found that request humiliating and discriminatory, according to the court documents. 4 According to the court documents, Obeng went to work with his natural hair, following the guidelines of In-N-Out's grooming and uniform policy. JishPhoto/Shutterstock Obeng claims he began receiving different treatment, such as being reprimanded for minor infractions, while other employees were not receiving the same. He also claimed that he was scrutinized more harshly and was denied any chance for promotion or career advancement. Some time near May 25, 2025, court documents say that Obeng was sent home to shave his sideburns, making him feel publicly humiliated since he received disciplinary action in front of other employees. 4 He also claimed that he was scrutinized more harshly and was denied any chance for promotion or career advancement. ETIENNE LAURENT/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock Obeng never returned to I-N-Out since a requirement to return was shaving his sideburns. Obeng was fired a few days later due to what the company claimed was from prior write-ups, but Obeng claims it was because of his 'ancestry, color and race, including his natural hairstyle and hair texture,' the court documents state. Obeng and his lawyer claim that In-N-Out went against the CROWN Act, which protects employees from race-based hair discrimination. The CROWN Act is an official law in 27 states, including California.
