Who is a member?
Our members are the local governments of Massachusetts and their elected and appointed leadership.
Eileen Fenton, Managing Counsel
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
10 Park Plaza, Suite 3510, Boston
RE: Regulation Hearing Comment — Annual Safety and Combined Safety and Emissions Inspection of All Motor Vehicles, Trailers, Semitrailers and Converter Dollies
540 CMR 4.00, An Act to Reduce Traffic Fatalities, Sections 9 and 10 of Chapter 358 of the Acts of 2022, M.G.L. Ch. 90, Sec. 7
Delivered electronically
Dear Attorney Fenton and Massachusetts Department of Transportation,
On behalf of cities and towns across the Commonwealth, I write today to express our strong concerns with the proposed municipal implications of the draft truck safety regulations included in 540 CMR 4.00, which are intended to support amendments to M.G.L. Ch. 90, Sec. 7, included in Chapter 358 of the Acts of 2022.
We deeply appreciate the extensive efforts in recent years of the Legislature, the Administration, USDOT, MassDOT, and advocates that have helped to elevate important safety considerations for vulnerable road users. As you know, municipalities are critical partners in ensuring that residents and visitors in the Commonwealth are able to travel to, from, and through our communities, safely. We support taking reasonable measures to help to reduce injuries and fatalities on our roadways.
However, the proposed regulations before you and associated interpretation issued through the MassDOT Guidance Memorandum 1 are not reasonable for cities and towns.
M.G.L. Ch. 90, Sec. 7, states that a vehicle classified as a class 3 weighing 10,001 pounds or more, that is operated under a contract with the Commonwealth on or after January 1, 2025, shall be equipped with a lateral protective device, convex mirrors, crossover mirrors, and backup cameras.
The MassDOT Guidance Memorandum, dated June 20, 2024 — just three weeks ago — states that municipal contracts funded with state aid through MassDOT would now be subject to this statute. This unnecessarily expansive interpretation of the law includes municipal-level actions and contracts that may be supported by state funding streams. This has detrimental implications for all departments of local government beyond MassDOT programs to potentially include state aid for education, Unrestricted General Government Aid, federal funding that may pass through the state, including the Clean and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, and beyond. The Guidance also states that “… costs associated with the installation of safety equipment are the responsibility of the contracting party.”
All municipalities receive state aid through Chapter 90 formula distribution. Communities may contract with other providers to complete Chapter 90-eligible projects or may take on the work themselves. The proposed interpretation would then require any providers contracting with municipalities for such work, and the municipalities themselves, to comply with the new device requirements, effectively mandating municipalities to equip all municipal class 3 vehicles over 10,001 pounds with lateral protective devices, convex mirrors, cross over mirrors, and back up cameras by January 1, 2025 — an unreasonable ask and considerable overstep of regulatory authority.
Approximately 90% of each municipal DPW fleet alone would require such retrofits with an estimated cost per vehicle ranging from $2,500 to $5,000. The proposal you are considering mandates this action, provides no funding support, and is in direct violation of Proposition 2½’s prohibition on unfunded mandates on municipalities.
The MassDOT interpretation of the statute to implicate municipalities and entities in contract with municipalities is in direct conflict with the intent of the law to regulate solely those directly in contract with the Commonwealth. The statute clearly intends these requirements to apply to providers directly contracted to work on state-level projects.
Further, the interpretation to include municipalities and municipal contracts as “contractors” expands regulatory authority with no legal basis. There is no definition within M.G.L. Ch. 90 to include municipalities receiving state aid as “under contract with the Commonwealth,” nor does the law indicate that municipal contracts with private entities for projects that may be funded with state aid constitute a contract with the state.
We understand and appreciate the important and laudable goals of this regulation, but they must be amended to reflect both the legislative intent and the legal underpinning of the legislation. Therefore, we strongly urge you to revise the proposed regulations and associated guidance to clearly exempt municipalities and those in contract with municipalities.
My team and I are available to answer any questions you may have, and are happy to further discuss the details, municipal perspective, and implications of the proposed regulations. Please do not hesitate to contact me or MMA Legislative Analyst Adrienne Núñez at anunez@mma.org at any time. Many thanks for your thoughtful attention to our input and for your ongoing efforts to ensure safe roadways across the Commonwealth.
Sincerely,
Adam Chapdelaine
MMA Executive Director and CEO