WASHINGTON D.C. [April 25, 2000] — After years of study and months of wrangling, arm twisting and leaked “trial balloons,” U.S. Transportation Secretary Rodney E. Slater today announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to revise the antiquated Driver’s Hours of Service regulations. Slater said the NPRM is designed to improve highway safety by ensuring that drivers of large trucks and buses have the opportunity to get adequate rest.

But comments that have surfaced so far suggest that his department may have been the only one in the room that was happy with what was said.

Walter B. McCormick, Jr., president and CEO of the American Trucking Associations, said the proposal would have a devastating effect on the economy as a whole, and the industry in particular. “This proposal could mean a 50% increase in the number of refrigerated and dry-van trucks on our already-crowded highways; that translates into as many as 180,000 additional drivers and trucks on the road just to keep the current economy moving,” he said in a press release. “The trucking industry is already struggling to find the nearly 80,000 drivers needed today; the industry could never make this impossible leap in new driver hires. This all adds up to a threat to the U.S. economy and American jobs.”

At the centre of McCormick’s concern is an increase in the off-duty time required for drivers in all road transport sectors from the current eight to a proposed 12 hours. At today’s Washington press conference, Slater unveiled five distinct proposals targeted at longhaul, regional, local and non-transport truck drivers:

* Type 1 (Long-haul) drivers who operate two or more off-duty periods away from their normal work reporting location must have at least 10 consecutive hours off duty in each 24-hour period. They must also have 2 hours off-duty during the workshift.

* Type 2 (Regional) drivers who operate only one off-duty period away from their normal work reporting location must have at least 10 consecutive hours off duty in each 24-hour period. They must also have two hours off duty during the workshift.

* Type 3 (Local-split shift) drivers who operate within 6 hours’ driving distance of their work reporting location and return to that location at the end of the shift. These drivers must have at least 9 consecutive hours off duty during the 24-hour period with an additional 3 consecutive hours off duty at some other point during the same 24-hour period.

* Type 4 (Local) drivers who operate within 6 hours’ driving distance of their work reporting location and return to that work reporting location at the end of each shift must have at least 12 consecutive hours off duty in each 24-hour period.

* Type 5 (Primary work not driving) drivers whose primary duties for the motor carrier are duties other than driving, and who report for work and are released from work at the same normal work reporting location must have at least 9 consecutive hours off duty in each 24-hour period.

Another significant change, under the proposed regulations, would require long-haul and regional drivers to use electronic on-board recording devices (EOBR) to verify drivers’ compliance with the regulations. Slater emphasized that the EOBR would be used by the Department only for such verification. But that didn’t satisfy McCormick’s concerns about the confidentiality of the electronic information. “The ATA believes this proposal fails to address legitimate privacy concerns regarding the use of mandatory on-board computers,” he said.

In an accompanying executive briefing and cost analysis report, the DOT estimated long-haul motor carriers would pay, over a ten year period, $253 million for the purchase of EOBRs, $229 million for maintenance, and $9.6 million for training, for a total undiscounted cost of approximately $492 million.

In addition to the distinctions between different categories of drivers, the NPRM included some very specific language regarding the scheduling of off-duty time and the weekly cumulative hour totals. Among the proposed options:

* Rest and meal breaks within the 12 hour work period would not count as off-duty time. Drivers must also have at least 58 hours of consecutive off-duty time every week, including a minimum of two midnight to 6 AM periods. This would allow for more than 2 full days off to obtain quality, uninterrupted, restorative sleep.

* Long-haul and regional drivers would also have a choice in calculating weekly driving time. They could follow the above procedure, or they could opt for a two-week schedule whereby drivers would have one short and one long “weekend.” For the short weekend, drivers would need 32 hours of consecutive off-duty time, including 2 consecutive midnight to 6 AM periods. After the short weekend, the driver could drive up to an additional 48 hours over the next 4 days, but then would require 82 consecutive hours off-duty, including 2 consecutive midnight to 6 AM periods, before returning to work.

* Another possible option, similar to the above two options except that drivers would be limited to a maximum of 18 hours of driving per week between the hours of midnight and 6 AM. The purpose of this option is to limit the number of hours spent driving in the middle of the night, because of abundant evidence which indicates that this is the most fatiguing period for drivers. Motor carriers would be encouraged to start driver’s work days approximately the same time each day, with some leeway.

Clearly dissatisfied with the proposal, ATA’s McCormick summed up his feelings with this statement: “DOT’s proposal would force today’s sophisticated e-commerce, point-and-click, just-in-time delivery systems back into old economy inefficiencies. Warehouses would bulge with goods as the freight backlog ballooned due to the massive shortage of trucks and drivers. The $130 billion worth of just-in-time inventory efficiencies would evaporate and consumers would be forced to pick up the increased costs – costs that are the direct result of an ill-considered proposal.”

On the other hand, Parents Against Tired Truckers (PATT) isn’t any happier. “As parents who have lost their children in Tired Trucker Crashes, we are stunned that the (DOT) is proposing a rule today that would allow truckers to drive even longer hours than they do under current legal limits,” Daphne Izer , PATT’s co-chairperson, said in a prepared statement. A staunch advocate of more rest time for drivers, Izer had at one time favored a 12-on and 12-off proposal, but now say they would have preferred 10-on, 12-off and 2 hours of break time during the 10 on duty.

PATT also expressed disappointment that DOT had failed to address the issue of unpaid and excessive waiting time for drivers. “The loophole in the Fair Labor Standards Act still stands, so it’s no wonder that drivers push themselves in order to make up for lost time,” Izer suggested.

According to David Bradley, CEO of the Canadian Trucking Alliance, many of the draft U.S. provisions mirror, at least in principle, proposals presently under consideration by the Canadian federal and provincial governments. But, he adds, “they also appear to be considerably more complex, raising interesting questions over how Canadian truckers that operate in the United States and have operations in Canada will be required to comply.”

Bradley says that Canadian truck drivers that operate in the United States will ultimately have to comply with their new rules, whatever they end up looking like. “That is no different from the present situation, ” says Bradley,” but we need to get a better understanding of how mixed Canada/U.S. operations will be affected. In addition, the rules in Canada will need to reflect the realities of the Canadian transportation network. And, while they should be compatible with those in the U.S., they are not likely to be identical.”

At this point the NPRM is just a proposal and to facilitate comment on the rule, DOT has scheduled seven public hearings to take place within the next 90 days. The hearings will be held in Washington, D.C.; Atlanta; Denver; Indianapolis; Kansas City, Mo.; Los Angeles; and a city in Massachusetts or Connecticut. Comments can also be submitted by conventional mail or electronically at: http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/BlankDSS.asp or.