H.R. 3725 was introduced at the request of the UTU.

That 1999 law it would amend eliminated an option for those holding a commercial driver's license to attend traffic violator school while maintaining their commercial driving privileges.

The Department of Transportation's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) crafted new regulations that, effective later this month, could result in bus operators losing their jobs for non-job-related traffic offenses in any state.

The inequity is that a holder of a commercial driver's license stands to lose that license as well as their job for a traffic violation committed in their private automobile; but private vehicle operators face no such loss of license when they commit similar traffic offenses.

Thus, bus operators on vacation and caught, for example, in a speed trap, or wrongly accused of a traffic offense hundreds of miles from home, are at significant economic risk.

Moreover, under the law as interpreted by the FMCSA, states are powerless to make exceptions from the federal law, nor are they permitted to provide remedial training as an alternative to canceling the commercial driver's license.

States also are barred by the current law from issuing a provisional license permitting the holder of a commercial driver's license to continue working while receiving remedial training.

"The purpose of the 1999 law was to improve highway safety through enhancing the methods of dealing with commercial drivers who receive certain moving traffic violations," said UTU International President Paul Thompson. "The intent was not to eliminate the re-education and re-training of commercial drivers, and that is what the UTU and Rep. Abercrombie are seeking to correct."

The UTU has been alone in this fight on behalf of bus operators. Previously, the UTU officials met with Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta and the head of the FMCSA. Although Mineta recommended the regulations be changed, the FMCSA declined to do so, citing its interpretation of the 1999 law.

Abercrombie, also at the UTU's request, attempted to have corrective language included in a massive highway-spending bill recently passed by Congress, but was unsuccessful. He followed up with his stand-alone bill aimed at correcting the problem.

UTU members can assist by urging their congressional representatives to support H.R. 3725. Holders of a commercial driver's license should not be singled out for special punishment that strips them of their license and their job.

"They should have the same treatment as the general public," said Mike Anderson, assistant California state legislative director. "The UTU's commitment to continue the fight on behalf of its bus operators demonstrates the will of our locals, general committees, legislative boards and the International." Anderson said it is "unfortunate" that many others, "who should have been concerned, were not involved."

Here is what the Abercrombie bill would accomplish:

-- It would prohibit DOT or the FMCSA from issuing or enforcing any regulation to prohibit a commercial motor vehicle driver from participating in a driving school in the disposition of a traffic violation;

-- It would prohibit DOT or the FMCSA from requiring that a state NOT issue a provisional driver's license in the disposition of a traffic violation. A provisional license permits the holder to continue driving on the job as well as between home and work.

-- When traffic violations are cited in states other than where the operator holds a commercial driver's license, that violation would not be automatically considered as reason for commercial driver's license disqualification.

"Education and training, as well as re-education and re-training, should remain as an important and essential part of whatever methods are used to oversee and improve the driving skills and/or abilities of commercial drivers," said Roy Arnold, vice president of the UTU Bus Department. "The elimination of these options by any oversight agency is counter-productive to the improvement of highway safety.

"Traffic violations received by a commercial driver in a non-home state should be carefully evaluated to be certain that statutory language in both states is compatible," Arnold said.