HOS Proposal Raises Ire on All Sides of Issue

This story appears in the Jan. 10 print edition of Transport Topics.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s new proposed hours-of-service rule, which would impose complex restrictions on commercial drivers’ work schedules, was panned by officials on all sides of the issue.

“We are sure that if it is enacted as it is now, it is going to have serious implications for all our operations,” said Randy Mullett, vice president of government relations for Con-way Inc., which is ranked No. 6 in the Transport Topics Top 100 list of for-hire carriers in the United States and Canada.

The proposed revisions to the rule include adding one hour of off-duty time within the 14-hour workday, limiting consecutive driving hours to seven and allowing two 16-hour work days a week if the daily driving limit has not been met. The revised rule also could reduce the maximum allowable daily driving time to 10 hours from the current 11-hour limit.

“The only thing that I see that could have some benefit is this notion that you can take off-duty hours while you’re being held up by a customer,” Mullett said. “And that is not a fair trade-off for all the other complexities and restrictions that go along with it.”

Mullett also highlighted a “notion buried in the back that we might have more restrictions on night driving,” as potentially damaging to the industry.

“The whole trucking industry works during those times,” he said, “so it would shove a whole lot more traffic into daytime hours” for the San Mateo, Calif.-based carrier and others.

Wayne Johnson, manager of carrier relations for Owens Corning and chairman of the National Industrial Transportation League’s highway policy committee, said the proposal “will hurt the productivity of trucking,” and, as a result, squeeze shippers.

“They’re bound and determined to change something that isn’t broken,” he said, referring to FMCSA.

“It will affect us as a nation with how many trucks are on the road, and it will affect us as a shipper by increasing the number of trucks we’re going to have to use to get our shipments moved,” Johnson said.

Jeff Davis, vice president of safety and human resources for Jet Express Inc., told Transport Topics that retaining the 11th hour of driving was “critical,” given the way Jet has structured its regional routes.

Davis also pointed to the requirement for two periods of rest between midnight and 6 a.m. during a 34-hour restart as another onerous provision “that will certainly have an effect on productivity.”

“It is something that could be workable down the road, but that would mean a tremendous amount of support and changes from our shipper population,” Davis said.

Industry executives weren’t alone in criticizing FMCSA for its proposal. The coalition of groups that have successfully challenged earlier versions of the rule twice in federal court, said the changes do not go far enough.

“The new proposed rule does not eliminate any of the anti-safety provisions that allow truck drivers to drive and work long hours, get less rest and drive while fatigued,” Public Citizen, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety and the Truck Safety Coalition said in a joint statement.

Specifically, the groups objected to the agency’s consideration of retaining the 11th hour of allowable daily driving and to the modified 34-hour-restart provision.

The groups stated they have “preserved the right . . . to return to court” and renew their challenge to the rules.

The groups called for cutting daily driving time and for a 48-hour restart, saying the new proposal “perpetuates excessive working and driving hours for truckers.”

Observers said the poor reception on both sides could be an indication of continued legal battles and uncertainty.

“The HOS proposal is telling, when both the ATA and Public Citizens’ group are quite critical of the new proposal,” BB&T Capital Markets Analyst Thom Albrecht said in a note to investors.

“Unlike some regulatory issues, in which equal criticism means kernels of truth and value have been discovered, this feels like a regulatory quagmire,” he said.

Stephen Keppler, executive director of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, said the proposed rules increase the chance of a universal mandate for electronic onboard recorders, something supported by CVSA and the coalition of groups that challenged the rule.

“It ups the ante that those things will become a more critical tool to help increase compliance,” Keppler said.

The rule “creates some scenarios that we don’t have today . . . and from our perspective, simplicity is best, and in whatever rule we have, ease of enforcement is paramount,” Keppler said, adding that requiring EOBRs is a way to improve enforcement and compliance with the rules.

FMCSA said it would take public comments on the rule through the end of February, but at press time, more than 200 comments already were in the agency’s docket.

“The current HOS seem to be working pretty well,” said Lee Hawkins, an owner-operator from Tennessee. “I would suggest keeping the 14-hour rule, the 11-hour rule [and] don’t limit the 34-hour reset rule. I may use it one time a week and two times the next week; it all depends on how the freight is running.”

Greg Decker, a driver for Triple Decker Transport, questioned why the agency was proposing changes, even as it has been “announcing the fantastic improvement in the statistics of decreasing accidents and deaths on the American highways.”

“Why do you want to jeopardize that improvement with a proposal that will decrease the working hours available to the present workforce?” Decker asked. “A decrease in potential hours will require an increased truck presence on the highways.”