Safety groups renew battle over trucking riders

Safety groups are renewing a fight over spending bill provisions that they worry would endanger truck drivers and other motorists on the road.

{mosads}In a letter to House and Senate appropriators on Tuesday, a coalition of consumer, public health and safety groups called on Congress to steer clear of certain provisions regarding trucker rest and meal breaks in a continuing resolution (CR), or a catchall spending bill, citing a “dramatic” increase in truck crash deaths and injuries.

The issue has been a lightning rod in the debate over fiscal 2017 transportation spending legislation, which is an otherwise non-controversial appropriations measure.

“We are writing to convey our strong objections to any riders being attached to the government funding bill that will repeal or revise truck safety laws and regulations,” the groups wrote. “Any efforts by special interests to rollback or degrade truck safety for the economic benefit of the trucking industry are unacceptable and unconscionable given the current mortality and morbidity toll on our roadways.”

At issue is a provision contained in last year’s omnibus spending bill that suspended the Obama administration’s proposed changes to the hours-of-service rule for truck drivers until the Department of Transportation (DOT) can prove the regulation would actually improve driver health and safety.

The proposed change — which was briefly enacted in 2013 but later suspended — would have modified the 34-hour “restart” period for truckers, which is an amount of off-duty time that drivers can take in order to reset their driving limit after they reach the maximum 60 hours in seven days or 70 hours in eight days.

The new regulation would have mandated that every restart period include two nights in that break, with no driving between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m., and said that truckers could only use one restart per week. The rule effectively would have limited truck drivers to 70 hours a week.

Safety advocates have argued that the change is important to ensure drivers are getting the most restorative sleep during the night, and claim that the current rules enable some drivers to work up to 82 hours a week.

But the trucking industry maintains that increasing the required rest time would force more truckers onto the road during morning rush hour, increasing the risk of accidents.

Further complicating matters is that the provision in last year’s omnibus, suspending the proposed changes, left out essential language clarifying what would happen if the DOT fails to prove that the update is beneficial to drivers. Such an omission would force the agency to revert to old rules put in place more than a decade ago if the DOT can’t make its case.

Language was tucked into the Senate’s fiscal 2017 transportation bill earlier this year that Republicans say would provide a “technical fix” to the drafting error made in last year’s omnibus.

The provision restores the overlooked language, and also caps the time truck drivers can spend behind the wheel or on duty at 73 hours per week.

But safety advocates have blasted the fix, claiming that the trucking industry lobbied heavily for the change and arguing that it will encourage longer workweeks.

And they maintain their opposition to the underlying language blocking the proposed change to the hours-of-service rule.

“Special trucking interests are aggressively pushing for the ‘tired trucker’ provision… to be attached as a ‘rider’ to the spending bill,” said Catherine Chase, vice president of governmental affairs for Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety.

A Republican aide would not comment on what may or may not be included in any spending bills.

“In order to preserve the integrity of ongoing bipartisan negotiations, we do not provide commentary on what is or is not being discussed by the leadership of the Appropriations Committee,” the spokesperson said.

In the House, appropriators proposed a technical fix without the new cap on hours. But the lower chamber’s spending bill also included another trucking provision that would preempt state laws on commercial trucking meal and rest breaks.

Supporters of the preemption language say it’s necessary to ensure uniform regulations for the industry.

But outgoing Sen. Barbara Boxer has said it would be a “poison pill” because it diminishes states’ abilities to maintain protections for truck drivers.

The California Democrat defeated an attempt to include the provision in last year’s highway bill and is likely to lead opposition efforts if the language resurfaces again.