Proposed hours-of-service rules under scrutiny

The DOT's proposal wouldn't improve safety much, critics charge. They also question whether the new rules could even be enforced.

By -- Logistics Management, 6/1/2000

The long-awaited draft of new rules governing truck drivers' hours of service was unveiled last month-and it seems that no one is happy with it.

The rules, proposed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), would represent the first major change in hours-of-service regulations since 1962 and the biggest change since the hours-of-service regulations were first adopted in 1937. They would be based on a 24-hour clock, rather than on the 18-hour cycle now in effect. The plan allows some types of drivers to work longer periods than under current rules, but it also calls for mandatory rest periods and for drivers to have two consecutive days off each week. It further mandates phased-in installation of on-board recording devices that would track compliance with the rules. The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that the changes would cost the trucking industry $490 million a year but would result in savings of $6.8 billion over 10 years by preventing accidents.

Yet industry observers have voiced a number of concerns. One group, for instance, charged that the rules would increase the risk of fatigue-related truck crashes. That group, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, is a coalition of consumer, safety, law-enforcement, and insurance organizations.

Trucking and shipper organizations also criticized the plan, charging that it would seriously diminish productivity while doing little to improve safety. Some fear the rules would require hiring thousands of new drivers by an industry already hard-pressed to recruit workers.

"The law of unintended consequences is going to apply," says John McQuaid, president and chief executive of the National Private Truck Council (NPTC). He says the rules are likely to have a significant effect on the economy.

Timothy P. Lynch, president and CEO of the Motor Freight Carriers Association, says that the proposal presents many problems for truckers. "There are too many open-ended questions," he says. "These rules could play havoc with how we move freight."

Industry advocates also object to the 90-day comment period, which they say is too short. Several trucking industry groups have requested extensions. "It is such a far-reaching proposal that no one has had an opportunity to digest it," says McQuaid. The agency had set a July 31 deadline for all public comments but was reportedly preparing to grant a 30-day extension.

A Sweeping Proposal

Some of the objections stem from the proposed rules' complex categorization system. The proposal divides trucking operations into five types, with different work and rest requirements for each, as follows:

• Type 1: Longhaul drivers who operate away from their normal reporting location for three or more consecutive days. They must have at least 10 consecutive hours off in each 24-hour period and be off duty for two hours during the work shift.

• Type 2: Regional drivers who may be away from their reporting location overnight but not for two consecutive nights. The same work hours apply as for Type 1 drivers.

• Type 3: Split-shift drivers who operate within six hours' driving distance of their reporting location, but whose shift is split by three or more off-duty hours. In addition to that three-hour break, they must have at least nine consecutive hours off duty during a 24-hour period.

• Type 4: Local drivers who operate within six hours' driving distance of their reporting location and who return to that location at the end of their shift. They must have at least 12 hours off duty in each 24-hour period.

• Type 5: Workers for whom driving is not their primary function-for example, driver-salesmen. They must have at least nine consecutive hours off in each 24-hour period.

Drivers of types 1, 2, 3, and 4 could be on duty for no more than 60 hours in any workweek. After that, they are required to take time off that must include three consecutive midnight-to-6 a.m. periods. Type 5 drivers may work up to 78 hours a week.

The proposal calls for vehicles used by type 1 and 2 drivers to have on-board recorders, known as "black boxes." Carriers with 50 or more trucks would have to install the devices within two years after the rule is made final. Smaller carriers would have up to four years.

Critics of the black box proposal question whether the technology exists to allow roadside inspectors to draw data from the boxes. They also wonder how the captured data would be used. "Are they monitoring the truck or the driver?" Lynch asks. He notes that his group's members-unionized less-than-truckload carriers-often use what they call slip-seating, in which drivers regularly switch trucks. It would be difficult, he says, for on-board recorders to monitor a driver operating different vehicles.

Jim Noble, director of safety programs for the NPTC, believes the proposal as drafted would be unenforceable. "How is a roadside inspector supposed to know what type of driver you are?" he asks. "What if you're trying to comply, but the trip changes? Are you in noncompliance or does your type change?"

Ed Mortimer, director of government affairs for the Transportation Intermediaries Association, agrees. "We see it as so complicated: There are five types of drivers and a driver can change with every movement. It's next to impossible to keep track of that."

Some believe that the productivity lost through adherence to the rules would force carriers to hire many new drivers. "The DOT says that if all the current drivers work to the hours allowed, it would require hiring 49,000 new drivers a year," says Bob Rothstein, general counsel of the Truckload Carriers Association. "If they're correct, that 49,000 plus the 80,000 we need now to stay current ... we're talking 130,000 people a year. I don't know where we're going to get them."

From what they've seen of the draft, say observers, the proposal does not resolve the problems that necessitated change in the first place. Saays Noble: "The idea for the rule is good, but what they actually put in writing has not achieved what they wanted for safety gains, and any gains are far overshadowed by the operational impact."

Editor's Note: The FMCSA has announced that it will hold a series of hearings seeking public comment on the hours-of-service proposal. For a list of hearing dates and locations and additional information on the hours-of-service rules, visit the Home Page of our Web site at logisticsmgmt.com.