Americans for Safe & Efficient Transportation Comments

To

U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Docket # FMCSA-97-2350
Hours-of-Service of Drivers

October 2, 2000

ASET Hours-of-Service Contact: Jake Jacoby

Also available in Microsoft Word format.

INTRODUCTION

Americans for Safe & Efficient Transportation (ASET) is a nation-wide broad-based coalition of shippers, motor carriers, manufacturers, logistics professionals and related organizations committed to delivering goods safely and economically. ASET members include industries as diverse as steel, paper and agriculture in nearly all fifty States. The goal of our coalition is to simultaneously improve safety and efficiency in truck transportation policy and legislation.

ASET welcomes the opportunity granted by DOT to address the recently proposed change in hours-of-service regulations. We at ASET appreciate the efforts of Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater and others within the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for their ambitious goal of overhauling these extensive regulations. The transportation community shares the goal of DOT - to maintain safe roads for the driving public, as well as for those whose job it is to deliver America's freight. However, our membership disagrees with many DOT recommendations, particularly those based upon "assumptions" within the HOS proposal. We have long supported DOT's safety programs such as the "No-Zone" education project to help motor carriers and passenger vehicles operate safely and cooperatively on our nation's highways. While changes in the current HOS regulations may be necessary, it is important we neither overstate their need nor feel compelled to make wholesale changes without adequate science or reliable data.

Hours-of-service are critical to the entire transportation industry. They determine how logistics and dispatch professionals perform their vital duty to a motor carrier company. Each route is based on the amount of time it will take to deliver goods and under every scenario, hours-of-service must be considered. Though the rules can be complex, most trucking companies have made it an art form. With the increasing e-commerce business and just-in-time delivery, trucks are depended on more than ever to satisfy shippers and consumers. In fact, trucks now handle close to 80% of the nation's freight movement.¹

SUMMARY OF HOS AND CHANGES PROPOSED

The hours-of-service regulations have been in place since the late 1930's without any amendments made since 1962. As of today, a driver must stop driving after accumulating either 15 hours of on-duty or 10 hours driving. Drivers are then required to take at least 8 consecutive hours of off-duty prior to being able to drive again. On-duty time may include loading and unloading as well as driving as long as driving time does not exceed 10 hours before taking the required 8-hour break. In addition to the 10 and 15-hour rules, drivers may not drive after accumulating either 60 hours every 7 days or 70 hours every 8 days, depending on the number of days each week the motor carrier operates. The recent HOS proposal would radically change the way motor carriers and shippers move freight. Under this proposal, five types of motor carrier operations would be recognized, with separate rules for each. Long haul and regional operations that often result in overnight stays have been categorized as Type 1 and Type 2 under DOT's proposal. Since ASET's membership primarily operates or utilizes these types of operations, our comments will be directed accordingly.

As ASET reads the proposed regulations, it appears that the stated objectives are the following:

• Adjust the 23-hour on-duty/off-duty work cycle to a normal 24-hour cycle.
• Increase time off to allow sufficient time for sleep.
• Require mandatory "weekend" recovery periods of at least two nights.
• Address the effects of operations between midnight and 6:00 a.m.
• Require the use of automated on-board recorders to monitor the work-rest cycle of long haul and regional drivers as to ensure their compliance with the hours-of-service rules.

Under the proposed HOS regulation, long haul and regional drivers may be on-duty no more than 12 hours within a 14 consecutive hour period in any workday. These drivers must remain off-duty for a minimum of 10 consecutive hours each workday, creating a 12 on-12 off cycle every 24 hours. There is a maximum of 60 hours of on-duty time in any workweek. Finally, all drivers must be provided an off-duty "weekend" period of at least 32 to 56 consecutive hours that include at least two consecutive midnight to 6:00 a.m. periods, before the start of the next workweek.

DOT's QUESTIONABLE ASSUMPTIONS

Principle to DOT's offering of the HOS proposal is their assumption that 15% of all fatal and injury truck accidents are fatigue-related.² According to DOT, the current HOS proposal would reduce fatigue-related fatalities by 115 and injuries by 2,995 annually. The problem ASET has with these conclusions is that they are not based on any scientific data. In fact, most of DOT's conclusions come from "professional judgment" according to a July 17th Government Accounting Office (GAO) letter to Congressman Frank Wolf, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation within the House Appropriations Committee. The GAO letter, in response to the HOS proposal, states that "DOT has an overall strategy for reducing fatalities, but it lacks specificity on how initiatives will contribute to reaching DOT's goals."³ This letter also contends that the effect of the HOS proposal, as well as the requirement of electronic on-board recorders, are not known and depend solely on DOT's assumptions. ASET comments will address both the assumptions made by DOT and the direct consequences of enacting the current HOS proposal.

DOT's argument that 15% of all fatal truck accidents are fatigue-related is based on a guessing game. Within the GAO letter, it states that "DOT officials relied on a report that indicates that the amount of large truck crashes that involve fatigue range from 2.8 to 6.1 percent and, based on their professional judgement, selected the midpoint - 4.5 percent."⁴ This is where we disagree vehemently with DOT. They add an additional 10 percent to the existing 4.5 percent because, according to GAO, "DOT officials believed that other crashes may have been the indirect result of fatigue." This included crashes caused by "inattention" or "looked but did not see."⁵ Nothing to do with fatigue - simply good-minded folks at DOT making guesses at what might have caused or contributed to many of these crashes. DOT's own statistics put fatigue-related crashes below 5 percent while those from others, such as police accident reports put the number at less than 1 percent. How can DOT make the leap of faith to 15 percent without having red flags go up immediately? The reason is that they need the number to be closer to 15 percent to make the argument for a change in HOS based on fatigue-related accidents.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

More Trucks on the Road:

Within the HOS proposal, DOT estimates that more trucks will traverse our nation's highways, especially in the daytime during peak traffic periods when passenger cars and trucks share the same roads. This is caused in large part because of the required "weekend" time-off a driver must take after his or her sixty hours on-duty time. The requirement specifically says that the "weekend" (32-56 consecutive hours) must include two successive nights between the hours of midnight and 6:00 a.m. By putting more trucks on the highways during peak-driving hours, more accidents will likely occur. This is simple common sense. To quote DOT's own Volume III Draft Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study, "[O]perating in higher traffic densities increases crash risk as a result of increased conflict opportunities with other vehicles."⁶

In an attempt to decrease fatigue-related crashes by truck drivers, the HOS proposal seems to suggest that the answer is to increase the chances of daylight crashes. Although some fatigue-related accidents do occur between the times of midnight and 6:00 a.m., the majority of all truck accidents, according to DOT's own HOS proposal, take place between 6:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. In fact, DOT's own estimates are that approximately 50% of all truck accidents occur between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. whereas less than 18% occur between midnight and 6:00 a.m.⁷ Instead of saving lives, by forcing motor carriers to operate additional trucks during daylight hours, there will be countless more opportunities for disaster to strike. The stated objective of DOT to reduce the number of overall accidents contradicts this basic fact.

Congestion Will Increase:

This proposal has not adequately addressed the problem of traffic congestion. Very few issues affect more of the general public than congested roadways. One of the direct results of DOT's HOS proposal would be to force trucks onto the road during rush hour and daytime traffic periods. All of us who have traveled down Interstate highways in the last few years can attest to the growing congestion that we must deal with. Trucks have contributed to this problem simply for the reasons we have stated earlier - that because of demand, large truck VMT have increased dramatically in the last decade. If the HOS proposal became law, Congress would mostly likely have to allocate more money for infrastructure in order to meet the demand of additional trucks. If not, congestion may begin to cripple American business, as truck transportation will require significantly more time for delivery. Lastly, with greater congestion comes less productivity for a truck driver because less on-duty time will be actually spent driving and more time will be spent sitting in traffic.

More Trucks to Haul Same Freight:

The increased congestion will occur because this proposal will lead to thousands of more trucks on the road to move the same amount of existing freight. When you must utilize more trucks to haul the same commodities, the general public's safety is compromised. Again, quoting DOT's Volume III Draft Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study, "All things being equal, increases or decreases in the exposure to crash risk proportionally increases or decreases the likelihood of a crash. Thus, changes in the number of truck trips made to haul the same amount of freight, could alter the likelihood of crashes."⁸ This in itself should be reason enough to scrap the current proposal and start over.

Flexibility in Freight Movement:

The emphasis on limiting nighttime travel by truck drivers will have additional unintended effects. For one, flexibility is a key component for motor carriers and their client shippers. Supply and demand fluctuate and no blueprint from Washington, D.C. will change that. There can not be a "cookie-cutter" approach to dealing with freight movement. As we stated earlier, just-in-time delivery means just that. Customers will continue to demand their products at specific times no matter what regulations are passed. Additional warehouses and transfer/loading docks will be needed to comply with the change in rules. The only way around these problems will be to put more trucks and drivers onto the road with the additional costs being in large part passed on to both the shipper and the consumer.

Driver Shortage:

DOT estimates that 48,849 new drivers will be needed to make up the shortfall of time lost due to the HOS proposal. This figure is extremely low in our opinion. We believe the number of new drivers (and new trucks) is closer to 100,000 - 200,000. This is an enormous cost to the motor carrier industry. DOT predicts a net loss of $384 million per year as companies are forced to hire and retain new drivers. Small business would have to spend an additional $100 million to comply.⁹ What DOT conveniently forgets is that there is a driver shortage throughout the nation already - and the HOS proposal seeks to augment that. Where will these drivers come from? What will be their training? ASET has learned through our members that many of their older drivers have threatened to quit the industry rather than comply with these new rules. What the HOS proposal will leave the trucking community with is simple - more young, inexperienced drivers behind the wheel of big rigs during the day. Because inexperienced drivers are more likely to have accidents and because the total number of drivers will increase significantly, DOT's stated objective of decreasing the overall number of accidents will never materialize.

Available Parking:

Safety consequences of the HOS proposal are not limited to automobile drivers only. The truck drivers who are forced to stop for their "weekend" stays may be out of luck. Parking was not an issue that was discussed in detail by DOT. There is a shortage of useful parking locations throughout the country at this time. Given the requirement for "weekend" stays and more time off of the road, truck drivers will be forced to utilize less than adequate areas to park their trucks such as side roads, the shoulders of highways, or unsafe rest areas. Many States already have laws in place that prevent truck drivers from using rest stops for more than a couple of hours continuously. Where will these drivers go once this HOS proposal becomes law?

Wage Loss for Truckers:

This proposal will not only threaten public and driver safety, but it will also strike the truck drivers' wallet. Because the HOS proposal does not differentiate between driving time and loading and/or other work duties, the actual time a trucker will be on the road will decrease. Because the majority of drivers are paid per mile, cutting back on driving time will have a direct correlation to their paycheck. If hours are cut, what current drivers will keep working? DOT's estimate of the cost to motor carrier companies is severely low and in any event unacceptable in an industry where current drivers are underpaid and truck companies struggle to stay afloat. While Congress continues to look at legislation to help alleviate many of these problems, the current HOS proposal will make it even more difficult for motor carriers and independent drivers to make a living.

Additional Unintended Effects:

Another unintended result from the HOS proposal will be a significant growth in the amount of air pollution, noise pollution, and fuel consumption caused by the added trucks. The current diesel fuel crisis our motor carriers and their shippers face has been devastating to countless companies. Forcing more trucks onto the road will only heighten the catastrophic effect these prices have had. DOT seems to be at odds with other federal agencies that seek to diminish fossil fuel emissions, improve our air quality, and ease our dependency on foreign oil.

Shipper Concerns & Effects

Although much of the analysis done by both ASET and other groups has focused on the effects a change in HOS would have on the motor carrier companies, it would also in turn hurt shippers. Much of our membership is comprised of shipper companies that must make use of trucks on a daily basis. If a steel, paper, or agriculture company needs to get its product halfway across the country within a few days there is no alternative to truck transportation. Each shipper company works with their individual motor carrier companies to reach agreements that will benefit both entities. When a proposal such as HOS comes along, shippers will not be able to avoid the increased costs. Motor carriers will have to raise their rates, which in turn force shipper companies to increase their costs, and in the end the consumer will pay more for each product.

Although DOT predicts $500 million a year in additional costs to truckers and shippers, there are other creditable sources that feel these costs will be even higher (as if $500 million wasn't enough). Researcher Robert Delaney of Cass Information Systems forecasts many transportation issues including truck size and weights, diesel fuel statistics, and freight movement. Delaney predicts that when you combine the costs of the HOS proposal, the current diesel fuel crisis and more stringent environmental regulations, the net loss over the next three years will equal $100 billion for investment in extra inventory, $50 billion in additional trucking services, and $25 billion for carrying costs on the extra inventory.¹⁰ As a direct result of the HOS proposal, there will be unacceptable losses for American business. The close and dependent relationship between shippers and motor carriers should not be overlooked. Adding additional warehouses, increasing the cost of inventory, and potentially moving freight at a slower pace are all anathema to our shipper companies. Shippers and motor carriers within ASET stand united on these points.

ANALYSIS OF ON-BOARD RECORDERS

Cost Estimates:

Along with the hundreds of millions of dollars the HOS proposal will cost each year to recruit, hire, and retain drivers, there are further anticipated costs that must be addressed. There is no contesting the fact that requiring on-board data recorders will be a tremendous cost to motor carriers. DOT's estimate that each will cost $1,000 is unrealistic at best. The latest figures for on-board recorders have shown the costs are closer to $2,000-$3,000 per vehicle.¹¹ Not only will on-board recorders cost more than DOT predicts but these cost estimates do not address the computers that are needed to operate the recorders. This is an additional expense that was not even considered. While DOT suggests that the time saved by utilizing on-board recorders is equivalent to money saved, ASET does not believe it equals the cost of buying and maintaining the actual on-board recorders. If the average truck driver saves a few hours a year not having to fill in logbooks and time sheets, at first glance it would appear that DOT has made a cost-effective point. However, the reality is that the average truck driver spends 2-3 minutes each day filling out these forms and that this miniscule time is not costing his or her employer thousands of dollars each year.

Privacy & Legal Concerns:

On-board recorders are being suggested by DOT because, in their opinion, truck drivers are inherently mistrustful and are being forced to break the existing hours-of-service regulations. What other industries are required to have the government watch over them with such incredible privacy violations? In what part of the U.S. Constitution does it express that the federal government has such a right? The legality of such a requirement in doubtful at best. ASET strongly believes that requiring on-board recorders will not stop those who are already breaking the law. A lawless person will continue break HOS regulations whereas a law-abiding truck driver will have an obtrusive "big brother" watching over them at all times. Who will enforce such a regulation? Where will DOT get the money and resources to take on this expansive governmental role? This issue is for motor carrier companies and truck drivers to decide amongst themselves, but certainly not for the federal government to demand.

Requiring motor carriers to install on-board recorders may also lead to more lawsuits. If the data from the recorders is available to anyone for any purpose, then this may be used in court to argue whether a truck driver and/or a motor carrier company should be sued for many other reasons outside the intended hours-of-service regulations. We have not seen any such disclaimers from the DOT to suggest otherwise. If the DOT contends that on-board recorders could use their data to stipulate the cause of an accident and corresponding blame, then our members would like the DOT to implement such a model for all vehicles. There is no reason a truck should be equipped with recorders and not automobiles, especially when looking at the fact that passenger cars cause most accidents involving trucks, let alone their own car-to-car collisions.

No Scientific Data:

All of these requirements are in the name of safety but what is the scientific research that DOT bases its desire to compel every single trucking company to add on-board computers? Simply put - none. The GAO letter to Congressman Wolf states, "Motor carrier administration officials told us that there is little research and on-road testing on which to base an estimate of the safety impact of requiring on-board recorders."¹² DOT bases much of its safety estimates on the fact that they believe long haul and regional drivers abuse HOS regulations the most. Therefore, their assumption is that these drivers will see a 20 percent decline in fatalities each year. How did they come up with this number? According to GAO, "DOT officials told us that DOT believed the 20-percent amount [reduction in fatalities due to on-board recorders] to be 'in the ballpark,' given its findings about potentially widespread violations of the current hours of service rules."¹³ Again, DOT doesn't use science or even industry statistics to make conclusions. Their so-called "findings" are a single questionnaire that went out and was returned with many respondents admitting that they had at one point broken the current HOS regulations. As a result, can DOT genuinely say that on-board recorders should be forced onto every single commercial truck in America?

CONCLUSION

Truck transportation has been a major factor in our ever-expanding national economy. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) have been on a steady incline for the past 10 years and there is no end in sight. It is estimated that truck VMT will increase more than 30 percent over the next 10 years while tons of freight moved will increase approximately 20 percent over the same period.¹⁴ The HOS proposal does nothing but enlarge this building crisis. DOT should be working closely with the trucking community to find ways to help ease this trend. Our new economy demands most companies utilize commercial trucks. The most important goal of all of us should be reducing all truck-related accidents and not trying to play a shell game of reducing one form of accident while supplanting it with another. All the truck regulations in the world won't change the fact that over seventy percent of all truck-passenger car accidents are found to be the sole fault of the passenger car.¹⁵

ASET will continue to advocate for federal and state regulations and legislation that seek to improve both safety and productivity in transportation policy. With the current HOS proposal, we have no question that neither safety nor productivity will be enhanced but rather they will be endangered. While we recognize the need to reduce fatigue-related accidents by truck drivers, ASET can not support any plan that would put more lives in jeopardy and cost billions of dollars to implement based almost entirely on "assumptions."

It is time for DOT to abandon this current proposal and sit down with all sides to work on a possible compromise approach. Only in Washington, D.C. would it be suggested that if everyone is opposed to an idea or regulation then it must be a winner. Our motor carriers, shippers, drivers, and the general public deserve better. ASET wishes to thank the Department of Transportation for allowing us to discuss our concerns and opinions on such a critical issue.