Driver hours of service: How long is too long?

Almost everyone agrees that the current hours-ofservice regulations for truck drivers need to change. Can government and industry reach agreement over how to change them?

By William Atkinson -- Logistics Management, 6/1/1999

The statistics make clear why driver fatigue is an important issue. According to the National Transportation Safety Board, 31 percent of all truck-driver fatalities and 58 percent of all single-truck crashes are fatigue-related. The "Driver Fatigue and Alertness Study" released by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in 1997 reports that:

- Fatigue is the number-one factor in heavy-truck accidents.

- Drivers think 7.2 hours of sleep is sufficient, but on average they get only 4.8 hours. (Medical research shows that 7.5 to 8.0 hours actually are required.)

- Few drivers are even able to tell when they are fatigued (although most believe they can).

There's more. A State University of New York (Albany) study found that:

- Two-thirds of truck drivers drive while drowsy at least once a month.

- One-fourth fall asleep at the wheel at least once a year.

- Although 39 percent of drivers who drive more than 10 hours at a time frequently drive while drowsy, 12 percent who never exceed the hours-of-service rules frequently drive while drowsy as well.

Why is the problem so pervasive, and how should it be addressed? Many in the motor-carrier industry blame, at least in part, the very regulations intended to keep tired drivers off the road--the current federal hours-of-service regulations, introduced in 1937. The regulations limit drivers to working for a maximum of 15 hours at one stretch, including a maximum of 10 hours behind the wheel. They must follow that with eight hours off duty and may then work a maximum of another six hours.

"There [are] certainly enough data to show that driver fatigue is an important issue in the trucking industry," says Dave Osiecki, vice president for safety policy at the American Trucking Associations (ATA). "In fact, getting some fundamental changes in the hours-of-service regulations is our number-one regulatory priority. ... Drivers should be able to drive when they are rested and to rest when they are tired."

Plans for an Overhaul

Others in the industry agree that change is needed. "The current hours-of-service regulations simply do not work," says Lana Batts, executive director of the Truckload Carriers Association (TCA). "The regulations need to be fundamentally overhauled. As they stand now, they don't manage fatigue--they create it." The reason, she says, is that the current hours-of-service regulations attempt to manage fatigue by regulating the number of hours worked. But that may not be a valid means of ensuring drivers are wide awake when they're on the road, she believes. "Current research tells us that fatigue is determined by when you sleep, how long you sleep, and how well you sleep, not by how long you work," explains Batts.

TCA and some other industry groups would like to see hours of service placed on a 24-hour cycle. Says John McQuaid, president and CEO of the National Private Truck Council (NPTC), "We now know that fatigue is affected by 24-hour circadian rhythms. Hours of service need to be based on this 24-hour cycle."

The 24-hour cycle these industry groups propose would give drivers 10 hours off (but not necessarily 10 continuous hours) and would give drivers the opportunity to get eight hours of sleep. In addition, the group would like to see a 24- to 36-hour rest period at the end of a workweek, as opposed to the currently mandated 3.5-day rest period.

Today's regulations, according to ATA's Osiecki, promote an 18- to 23-hour cycle that leaves drivers little time for sleep. "In addition, the current regulations provide for only eight hours off duty," adds Osiecki. "When you consider driver paperwork, driving home from the terminal, and other time factors, drivers can't get eight hours of sleep with only eight hours off work."

McQuaid argues in favor of a more flexible approach. "There are so many different kinds of driving in the trucking industry that prescriptive, inflexible regulations would not work. With hours of service, one size does not fit all," he says. "The Department of Transportation should not regulate from a forced hours-of-service perspective. Rather, it should take a fatigue-management perspective."

Under this approach, there could be three or four different fatigue-management plans that reflect the different operating needs of the various segments of the trucking industry. "As an operator, you would declare under which fatigue- management plan you wanted to operate," he says. NPTC members' drivers, for example, have average hauls of only 51 miles. "What we would like to see are 15 hours on duty, including 12 hours of driving time, and nine hours off duty," he says. "Long-haul drivers, on the other hand, may want 14 hours behind the wheel and 10 hours off, because they don't care specifically about the hours on duty," he adds.

McQuaid says any new regulations not only should address hours of service, but also should include mitigating provisions for drivers who become fatigued while driving. He cites one example: "If a driver is fatigued, he could radio in for permission to pull over and take a 30-minute nap. However, if you find this occurring quite a bit, it would indicate that you needed to consider switching fatigue-management plans." The proposed fatigue-management plans also would include periodic classes on fatigue as part of driver-wellness programs.

Prospects for Change

Whether the industry can expect changes in the regulations anytime soon is hard to gauge. Currently, the FHWA is investigating the possibility of trying "negotiated rulemaking" regarding hours of service. "We want to see if it is possible to convene a group of representative stakeholders who could come to a consensus. We are waiting for the results of this feasibility study," says FHWA representative David Longo.

ATA hopes that negotiated rulemaking will be adopted for the hours-of-service regulations. "Even if everything can't be negotiated, I think it would be very helpful for all the parties to come together and reach consensus on some of the major issues," Osiecki says. "This would make it easier for the FHWA to create regulations later on."

McQuaid, meanwhile, is pessimistic about the outcome of the feasibility study. "I'd like to see negotiated rulemaking, but my guess is that the contractors FHWA have hired will say it's not possible," he says.

TCA's Batts is even more of a pessimist about the possibility of change in the near future. "Frankly, I don't expect any activity on hours of service until after the presidential election," she says. "I don't think the Democrats will want to do anything to upset the unions before the election."

According to the FHWA, though, the process for changing the rules already has started. "While we are waiting for the feasibility study's results, we are going ahead with our traditional rulemaking process," Longo says. "We will look at the comments that have come in, write a notice of proposed rulemaking, publish this, await comments, make final recommendations, and then put it through a final review process." The timetable for all of this? "We hope to have everything completed before the end of the year," Longo says.

William Atkinson is a freelance writer specializing in ergonomics and occupational safety issues.