Motor carriers and shippers alike were caught off-guard last month when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C., Circuit unexpectedly threw out the new hours-of-service (HOS) rules for motor carriers. The court issued its decision on the grounds that the rules, designed to reduce fatigue among truck drivers, actually endangered drivers' health.

With the news, the industry is bracing for possible friction between carriers and shippers if carriers continue to charge higher rates that resulted from implementing the new rules.

The court allowed the HOS rules to remain in effect for a 45-day grace period while the federal government reviews its legal options. At press time, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) had not yet decided whether to appeal the ruling or to modify the rules to accommodate the objections of the three-judge panel.

The court's decision came in response to a lawsuit brought by the safety-advocacy group Public Citizen. In its suit, Public Citizen charged that the HOS rules did not meet a Congressional mandate to improve driver safety.

In January the HOS revision increased maximum drive time from 10 hours to 11 hours and increased the required rest time for each 24-hour period from 8 hours to 10 hours. On-duty time, which now includes time spent on loading, unloading, meals, and fuel stops, was cut from 15 to 14 hours.

Public Citizen objected to increasing the number of hours drivers can spend behind the wheel. The group also charged that the rules were flawed because they rely on self-reported logbooks instead of electronic onboard recorders to enforce driving limits.

The court's stated reason for striking down the rules was that the FMCSA failed to consider drivers' health when formulating the regulations. But the judges also said that they were troubled by the increase in driving time, noting that the agency failed to cite any scientific studies supporting its belief that shortening the on-duty period by one hour would compensate for one more hour behind the wheel.

The court also criticized the FMCSA for not requiring electronic onboard recorders to monitor drivers' compliance. In addition, they questioned the so-called "sleeper berth" exemption. Under that exemption, team drivers who use a sleeper berth may split the required 10 hours of rest into two periods, provided that one of those periods lasts for at least two hours. That practice, the judges said, deprives drivers of the opportunity to get eight consecutive hours of sleep.

The ruling caught the industry by surprise since other challenges to the rules had failed. While both sides wait for the FMCSA to make its next move, some wonder if it will be possible to turn back the clock and restore the old rules.

One executive who harbors such doubts is Thomas Nightingale, vice president of corporate marketing for Schneider National Inc. in Green Bay, Wis. "Because of the high turnover, there are thousands of drivers who have never driven under the old rules. They don't know anything but the new rules," he observes.

Returning to the previous regimen could have serious consequences for shippers, too. Because the reworked HOS rules have reduced drivers' overall on-duty time, shippers have had to make their docks more efficient.

Shippers aren't about to throw out those improvements, even if the old rules should be reinstated. "Carriers and shippers have gotten smarter," says Dave Jordan, national transportation manager at McCormick & Co. in Sparks, Md. "I'm not going to tell the warehouse group, 'you can forget those efficiencies now.'"

Besides prompting more efficient distribution practices, the rules significantly raised costs for truckers, and they in turn exacted price increases from shippers.

Eliminating or drastically changing the new hours-of-service rules could shake up relations between carriers and their customers. Shippers may press trucking companies to roll back HOS-triggered rate hikes. It's anyone's guess how truckers will respond.

"It's fair to say there are a number of carriers who used this [HOS rule change] as an opportunity to raise rates," says Jordan. "If the circuit court prevails and the federal government drops its appeal, I could go back to the carriers and take another look at the price increases I accepted."