FAST Act Advances Key Trucking Industry Priorities

“By ordering an evaluation and improvement of CSA, as well as removing the flawed scores the system produces from public view in the meantime, this bill is an important victory for data and accuracy in regulatory oversight,” said ATA executive vice president and chief of national advocacy Dave Osiecki. “Similarly, by mandating that the Department of Health and Human Services set standards for hair testing, Congress has given trucking companies a powerful tool to keep habitual drug users out from behind the wheel. These are both important victories for safety.”

Other provisions in the legislation are a full study of the impacts of raising minimum insurance limits and a clamping down on a program to allow conversion of interstate highways to toll roads. ATA did note, however, that the final bill missed an opportunity to further improve safety and efficiency in trucking, particularly in the case of not allowing younger drivers to operate in interstate commerce.

The association said it was also disappointed the legislation did not address the potential patchwork of state rules unleased by allowing California and other states to impose their own work and rest rules. “By not clarifying Congress’ intent, and the federal government’s role in governing interstate commerce, this bill opens the door for a hodgepodge of state regulations that will harm the safety and efficiency of the trucking industry,” said ATA president and CEO Bill Graves. “We hope Congress will quickly revisit this issue.”

“It’s good news that Congress created an opportunity for young veterans to transition to the trucking industry,” added Graves, referring to the creation of a pilot program for certain veterans under the age of 21 to drive commercial vehicles across state lines. “We are, however, disappointed that qualified, young, nonmilitary CDL holders cannot have the same opportunity because we believe it is illogical to allow these younger drivers to operate in intrastate commerce in each of the 48 contiguous states, but not let them cross state borders. It is puzzling why Congress would dispense with language from both chambers that was very similar in many respects in favor of a provision that was so starkly different.”