34-hour restart rule was no longer applica- ble, despite the law’s intent – though it never said so definitively. The Virginia Tech report has been completed but has not been released by DOT. When that happens, the pre-2003 rules could take effect. Changing the restart rule would have
a huge effect on the motor carrier industry. Carriers would see a reduction in produc- tivity. Disruptions would occur with distri- bution centers, networks and routes, all of which have been organized around how far a driver can drive and how to get him or her home. Electronic logging devices, whose use recently was mandated by the FMCSA, would all have to be repro- grammed. Dave Osiecki, the American Trucking
Associations’ former executive vice presi- dent and chief of national advocacy, had hopes that the legislative fix would come as part of one of the giant appropriations bills that fund large parts of the government. Progress has already occurred on that
front. The Senate passed a $56 billion transportation funding bill May 19. It con- tained language that would fix the problem but added a new cap of 73 hours of driving per week – the result, Osiecki said, of a compromise to keep the bill moving. The cap would require drivers and carriers to continue to monitor their previous week’s hours, as opposed to the current restart rule, which restarts the clock completely. The ATA is opposed. “We don’t see a need for a cap,” he
said. Meanwhile, the House version had
moved through the relevant subcommittee and had made it to the House Appropriations Committee, though it had not made it to the House floor. That’s not unusual this year, as the House is moving slower than the Senate on appropriations. Things have continued to stall, so
what does the future look like? With fall approaching, the presidential election would get in the way, and the bill likely will not be signed until the lame duck session, which is the time period after the election but before the new Congress and president are sworn into office. “There’s a much better possibility that it would happen in lame duck after the
IN THE MEANTIME, OSIECKI SAID IT NOW SEEMS UNLIKELY THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WILL TAKE AWAY THE RESTART PROVISION BECAUSE OF THE GLITCH. THE PROBLEM SURFACED IN JANUARY, AND BY MAY, THE DEPARTMENT HAD NOT ACTED. THAT’S A GOOD SIGN.
election,” he said. “Not a certainty, but a much better possibility.” Another possibility would be that
transportation funding would be rolled into broader bills dealing with the govern- ment’s response to the Zika virus, Puerto Rico’s financial problems, and military construction. If that happens, the fix could come more quickly. However, if Congress is unable to come to agreement on the budget this year, it could just pass a continuing resolution to maintain funding levels. If that happens, the fix would have to wait for next year. What’s unlikely to happen is that
Congress would just pass a bill dealing with only the restart rule. “Issues like this don’t get resolved
with standalone bills,” he said. “Very, very few standalone bills ever move in Congress. The practice is, Congress takes up a lot of different issues, and they address those issues in a much broader bill.” In the meantime, Osiecki said it now
seems unlikely that the Department of Transportation will take away the restart provision because of the glitch. The problem surfaced in January, and by May, the depart- ment had not acted. That’s a good sign. “We were concerned that that’s what
they could do, and we’re still concerned about that, but let’s face it: The Congress is now moving forward,” he said. “The Congress has language, Senate and House have language … in both bills. So the con- gressional intent was clear back in 2015, even though there was a hiccup, missing sentence, and it seems to be pretty clear
today that Congress wants the restart to stay in place. So it appears that the DOT and DOT officials are getting the message that the restart shouldn’t be taken away.” The Texas Trucking Association’s
John Esparza doesn’t blame the ATA for the legislative hiccup. “The American Trucking
Associations has done a fantastic job not just to get to a point that we were back when the bill was passed, but since that time in kind of keeping the negotiations and the conversation alive so that we can get what was intended in law and in the proper language,” he said. “It’s not easy to do. In fact, as states, I would say myself and my colleagues across the country would easily find ourselves in that position of unintended consequence.” Instead, he expressed frustration with
the FMCSA, which he said tends to have an adversarial mindset. “As long as we have an us versus them
mentality with an agency that holds so much purview over the trucking industry, we’re not going to move in a positive direc- tion. … So many of our problems come from a lack of trust instead of a spirit of working together,” he said. Esparza expressed appreciation to
members of the state’s congressional dele- gation for staying actively engaged with the issue.
“They understand, and they get it. …
It’s not like we have to spend weeks and months trying to say here’s our problem,” he said. “We open the lines of communica- tion. They understand.” R
Summer 2016 45
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56