House OKs Fiscal 2016 Transport Bill; Includes Several Trucking Provisions

By Eric Miller and Eugene Mulero, Staff Reporters

This story appears in the June 15 print edition of Transport Topics.

New requirements in the hours-of-service restart study and permitting the use of twin 33-foot trailers were key trucking provisions included in a fiscal 2016 spending bill House lawmakers approved June 9.

The fiscal 2016 transportation funding bill, which passed 216-210, would require that, before the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration could attempt to reinstate the suspended 34-hour restart rule, a study must be completed addressing whether the rule has safety benefits.

The Virginia Tech Transportation Institute recently has commenced a review of the HOS rule on behalf of FMCSA.

The bill would provide FMCSA with $572 million for the next fiscal year. The amount would fund the agency’s general operating budget beginning Oct. 1, when fiscal 2016 starts. It also includes a provision that would block the U.S. Department of Transportation from issuing a rule intended to increase insurance requirements for motor carriers.

Office of Diaz-Balart

American Trucking Associations President Bill Graves said the House “has taken an important step in improving the safety of our highways, first and foremost, but also the efficiency of our highway system and the industry that moves nearly 70% of the nation’s goods.”

The top transportation appropriator in the House, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), the sponsor of the bill, said the measure ensures the safety of the country’s intricate freight network. Diaz-Balart led a GOP majority in fending off an effort to defeat the bill by the conservative group Heritage Action for America, as well as by Democratic leaders.

Rep. David Price of North Carolina, the top transportation appropriator for the Democrats, was a strong critic of the bill.

“It would be bad enough if the cuts were limited to our transportation and housing systems, but Republicans have taken the same shortsighted approach to each of this year’s domestic appropriations bills,” he said.

An appropriator is a lawmaker with jurisdiction over spending authority.

Overall, the bill would provide $55.3 billion in discretionary budget authority, which is a $1.5 billion increase above the current funding. Senate appropriators have yet to take up their version of the bill.

The White House has suggested it could veto the bill over its proposed discretionary funding levels. The administration also has indicated it opposes the trucking provisions.

A few days before the vote, lawmakers rejected an amendment offered by Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.) targeting insurance requirements.

The amendment called for removing a provision in the funding bill that would block the U.S. Department of Transportation from issuing a rule intended to increase existing insurance requirements for motor carriers, such as truckers.

On June 4, members voted 247-176 to not adopt it. Nine members were recorded as no votes.

Speaking on the House floor in opposition to the amendment, Rep. David Young (R-Iowa) said: “Safety is important. We all know that. We all want to make sure that our roadways are safe. But the Department of Transportation readily admits that raising the cost does not necessarily improve safety.

“The DOT’s own study expresses a crippling revelation to proponents of a cost increase on our job creators. There may be more effective ways that reduce crashes at a lower cost.”

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association also opposed Cartwright’s amendment, saying it would have allowed FMCSA to arbitrarily raise financial requirements for commercial motor carriers.

“Congress never intended financial requirements to be tied to increases in medical inflation or to cover the worst-case crashes, and the legislative and regulatory history on that is clear,” OOIDA Executive Vice President Todd Spencer said in a statement.

“In a worst-case crash, FMCSA’s own report admits that there is no requirement high enough to cover all damages,” Spencer wrote, “but there may be other ways to address covering the damage costs of catastrophic and worst-case crashes.”