In a small town not far from where I live in Connecticut, three Brooklyn town highway employees have now been caught up in a stolen diesel fuel scam. The three employees, including the town’s highway department director, claim they didn’t know they were buying stolen fuel, according to the Norwich Bulletin.

“We never had any clue,” Tom Rukstela, the highway director, said.

Police allege the three purchased the fuel for $2 a gallon for home use, about half of what it was selling for at the time, because they were told it was used fuel taken from tanks that were removed from the ground. Turns out the fuel had been stolen from a company in Thompson, CT. Three different men have been arrested and charged with that theft.

Rukstela reportedly questioned why the town employees were being charged. “Why all of a sudden are they picking on people who were purchasing it without the knowledge of it being stolen?” he asked.

The trio face up to five years in year in jail if convicted.

Here’s a golden rule to follow: If a deal seems too good to be true, do your due diligence. Check it out. Chances are, it probably is too good to be true. And if a guy just shows up at your door and wants to sell you diesel fuel, just say no.

Late last week, I received a press release from the Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) telling me that “most Americans agree with professional truckers about Mexican trucks.” OOIDA picked up on a Rasmussen Report that said 66% of American adults surveyed do not want Mexican trucks to carry loads on American Highways.

OK, fine. I don’t doubt that it is true. However, the survey, conducted Aug. 10-11, asked 1,000 adults the following question: “Mexico wants President Obama’s help to end the ban on Mexican trucks operating in the United States. Should Congress let trucks from Mexico cross the border and carry their loads on American highways?”

For the record, 19% said yes, 66% no and 15% were not sure with a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points. I wonder if the question had been framed differently, how different the results would have been. Perhaps put this way, “most Americans” would feel differently: “If Mexican trucks abide by all U.S. safety regulations when traveling on U.S. highways, should they be allowed to travel inside the U.S.?” Or, how about this question: “If allowing Mexican trucks to haul goods into the U.S. would reduce consumer prices, would you want the U.S. government to allow those trucks into this country?”

My point is simple: the answers you receive all depend on how the question is framed. I’m fairly certain that through a series of questions, I can prove that the sky is green. True? Of course not, but based simply on the questions asked, I could lead you to that conclusion if you take no other information into account.

According to Rasmussen, the poll has a “95% level of confidence.” I’m no polling expert and I’m not sure what that actually means, but I don’t see how 1,000 adults is a statistically representative sample of the 217.8 million adults (age 18 and over) in the U.S. according to the Census Bureau.

But, in the end, I guess 660 people is the “majority of Americans.”

According to an Associated Press report by Hope Yen, a study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that as many as 1,073 commercial trucking companies are operating in the U.S. under different names after investigators shut them down due to violations.

“These companies pose a safety threat to the motoring public,” wrote Greg Kutz, GAO’s managing director for special investigations. “We believe that these carriers reincarnated into new companies to evade fines and avoid performing the necessary corrective actions.”

It’s bad enough that companies would do this, putting at risk lives. But, according to the article, the GAO said the FMCSA doesn’t have the computer capabilities to track these companies effectively and it is not clear who has jurisdiction to enforce the laws – FMCSA or states.

While acknowledging it is difficult to track down offenders – if it wasn’t, then companies would not continue operating – the lack of proper resources or clarification of law is inexcusable. These are simple fixes that should be done.

Rep. James Oberstar, D-MN, and chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is pushing the reauthorization of the highway bill. While the administration is pushing an 18-month “patch” until time is available put together what it calls a proper approach to transportation.

Either way, Oberstar has proposed new rules that would provide FMCSA the power to revoke company licenses and direct the organization to improve its computer systems. That proposal is in the Committee’s reauthorization bill proposal. If the administration eventually chooses the patch and delays the reauthorization bill, then Congress must act on the separate proposals to fix this obvious problem and put FMCSA on the right track.

The Texas State Legislature passed several new bills in its most recent session that will affect the trucking industry in the state. The two most prominent are in regards to idling and cell phone use.

No longer will drivers be allowed to use wireless devices within a school zone while operating their vehicles unless it is a hands-free device or the vehicle is stopped. If the goal, and I assume it is, is to improve safety around schools where children walk and play - oftentimes not paying attention to their surroundings – then I’m fine with that.

There is, of course the debate about whether hands-free devices are any safer than using an actual phone, but the alternative may be banning phone use altogether. And from someone who drives about 120 miles a day to and from work, that may not be such a bad idea at all. But I digress.

The other law with a big impact is the idling regulation. No longer can trucks sit idle while drivers rest in their sleeper berths. That’s good for the environment, but not so much for fleets pocketbooks. As we know, it can get warm in Texas in the summer. It is good for the APU industry, though, as any fleet traveling into Texas will want to have some sort of auxiliary cooling and heating system.

The new laws go into effect September 1.

An initial plan to restart a version of the cross-border trucking program has moved through the first step and is now heading to Capitol Hill for review according to the Washington Times.

It’s about time. Right after Congress and President Obama officially stopped funding the pilot program - essentially killing it – the administration has said it would put together a new program for Congressional review. That was in March.

Since that time, Mexico has slapped more than $2 billion in tariffs on U.S. goods heading into that country. Whatever you thought about the program, the fact is U.S. businesses are being hurt by the tariffs. A solution needs to happen and happen soon.

According to the Times article, the California apricot industry has fallen off 60% since a 45% tariff went into effect and Mary Kay Cosmetics is paying $450,000 a month in tariff-related charges.

There were no details as to what a new program would look like, but the American Trucking Assns., the Teamsters and others had their say recently with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

Here’s hoping that a new program is in place soon.