ATA Questions Fatigue Data Used by FMCSA to Craft HOS Rule

This story appears in the Jan. 17 print edition of Transport Topics.

American Trucking Associations began its pushback against the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s proposed hours-of-service rule last week by questioning the agency’s analysis and asking Congress to lobby on the industry’s behalf. 

“If implemented, the regulations would have a substantially negative impact on productivity and the economy,” ATA President Bill Graves said in a Jan. 12 letter to Congress. “Trucking companies would need to put a large number of additional trucks and drivers on the road to deliver the same amount of freight, adding to final product costs and increasing congestion on the nation’s already clogged highways.”

The proposal, announced by FMCSA on Dec. 23, would restrict the number of hours a driver can drive consecutively and work within their 14-hour work day and places new restrictions on the 34-hour restart provision used by drivers to reset their weekly driving allotments.

The agency, however, has yet to determine if it will further restrict the number of hours a driver can be behind the wheel to 10 from the current limit of 11.

The federation also accused FMCSA of linking fatigue with crashes too often.

“FMCSA appears to be treating any crash in which fatigue is listed as an ‘associated factor’ as a fatigue-caused crash,” ATA said in a release, referencing the agency’s use of a Large Truck Crash Causation Study.

The result of FMCSA’s analysis increased the percentage of crashes caused by fatigue to 13%, up from the roughly 7% the agency had previously acknowledged.

In its release, ATA said the agency had previously avoided using the LTCCS to support the hours rule because the report makes “no judgment . . . as to whether any factor is related to the particular crash, just whether it was present.”

A spokeswoman for FMCSA declined comment.

Graves said it was “troubling that this complex, restrictive set of proposed rules is founded on what appears to be incorrect analysis and inflated math.”

“Even with the inflated percentage, which is highly suspect, the highway safety benefits don’t outweigh the costs,” said Dave Osiecki, ATA senior vice president of policy and regulatory affairs. “It is only when the agency puts in assumed health benefits, which is a significant and different assumption than was made in the recent past that they do.”

Osiecki said that for the first time, FMCSA attached a dollar figure to the potential health benefits of drivers sleeping more.

The benefits, FMCSA said, are derived from reductions in obesity, sleep apnea, high blood pressure and other conditions linked to lack of sleep.

The effect of additional sleep as a result of the rule may range anywhere from a loss of $110 million to a nearly $1.5 billion benefit annually with 10 hours of driving, and from a $100 million benefit all the way up to a nearly $1.2 billion benefit annually if the entire new rule is implemented, FMCSA’s analysis said.

The analysis also put the total safety benefit for the 10-hour proposal between $390 million and $1 billion across the industry, while the 11-hour option saw estimated benefits of between $230 million and $590 million.

The cost, FMCSA said, of the two proposals range from $1.03 billion for the 10-hour driving day and $520 million with an 11-hour day.

“The net benefits are likely to be positive,” FMCSA said, while acknowledging that the effect of the 10-hour day could range from a loss of $750 million annually to a benefit of $1.4 billion, while an 11-hour day could cause between $190 million in losses and $1.3 billion in benefits.

“The difference in that range is certainly something we’ve looked at and are continuing to look at,” Osiecki said. “In my experience the range of potential benefits appears to be very large relative to other analyses in the past . . . and that raises a big question right from the get-go.”

Osiecki said taking its case to Congress and questioning FMCSA’s analysis were part of a larger effort to encourage the industry to comment on the agency’s proposal.

The industry, he said, included not just fleets and drivers, but shippers and logistics providers.

Those efforts, he said, could lay the groundwork for future litigation.

“We’re interested in building a solid record, both for the agency to evaluate and if necessary for the court to evaluate in litigation,” Osiecki said. “If the administration thought that this proposal would end litigation they have another think coming.”