Opinion: Prescription for Hours of Service

By James E. Scapellato

resident

capellato Group

The Department of Transportation’s proposed rule on driver hours of service obviously is intended to reduce fatigue-related casualties and preserve the economic vitality of the trucking industry. We all would agree that no price tag can be put on safety. I applaud the government’s rulemaking efforts to reduce vehicle crashes on America’s highways and agree we must limit the number of hours a driver can work. However, in a dynamic economy, we must also think realistically on the best way to keep businesses in the black. We need a system that is less dogmatic and categorical in favor of one based more on a trucking company’s operational performance.

I speak mainly from the perspective of effectiveness. We must reduce casualties and deaths on our highways, but regulating a driver’s work hours according to the type of operation he or she is involved in is simply not practical in today’s economy. Categorical limitations assume all drivers in that type are identical. Further, a rule can force a driver to be off duty, but the government cannot monitor the quality of a driver’s rest during off-duty time. I am aware of no reliable or affordable test to determine the mental and physical status of a driver returning to work. We all know from personal experience that hours off the job don’t necessarily equate to adequate rest. The old adage, “I had to come back to work to get a rest,” applies all too often in our hectic environment. A rule of numbers falls short in this regard, and other alternatives should be considered.

Specific to fatigued drivers, one possible alternative would be to adopt a rule that targets risk-related diseases and behaviors. Current rules have absolute driving prohibitions for medical conditions such as insulin-dependent diabetics and people who suffer from epilepsy or hearing or eye deficiencies. Why not promulgate a rule that disqualifies any person from driving a CMV who has been diagnosed with a sleep disorder, such as sleep apnea, narcolepsy and hypersomnolence? An inexpensive test added to the medical exam would only help motor carriers in hiring the most medically qualified drivers. This approach becomes a preventive one, rather than a reactive one, and it specifically targets those who have problems obtaining quality sleep regardless of mandated hours off or rest periods. Additionally, it would pinpoint those drivers who are at risk without limiting hours of service for those who can obtain quality rest within a prescribed period. Since motor carriers already bear the expense of physically qualifying drivers, a sleep disorder screening would add only a small cost to that already being spent.

Nonetheless, a rule targeting specific disorders still does not address drivers who may not be a risk medically but who still may be unfit to drive because of lifestyle choices or circumstances.

To better deal with lifestyle realities or unforeseen circumstances, I prefer a rule that is based on motor carrier’s safety peformance on the road. Carriers could be rewarded or limited according to their road-safety track record rather than merely by the type of operation they run.

A performance-based model would provide the incentive for motor carriers to become a superior performing carrier — one that has an exemplary safety performance track record over a sustained period of time — by allowing that carrier the least number of restrictions on HOS.

At the same time, a carrier with unsatisfactory performance or a company with no proven track record could be tiered accordingly with increased levels of driving-hours restrictions.

This type of model puts the ball in the court of the carriers, where it belongs. It also allows the government to assume the leadership role: setting operational safety standards of performance (through notice and comment) and monitoring crash reduction progress.

A new HOS rule based on performance, accompanied by a driver medical prescreen for sleep disorders, would give carriers the incentive and flexibility to be innovative within the dynamics of the industry. The burden of responsibility falling on their shoulders creates an incentive for the companies to regulate themselves, to invest in technologies concerning driver alertness, to educate through driver alertness and fatigue management, to improve on-the-road performance, and to achieve superior safety results in all areas of operation.

Simply put, it would reward those who do it well and regulate those who don’t.

As a former federal regulator, I believe the government can, through effective rulemaking, achieve the proper balance between enhancing motor carrier safety and preserving economic viability in a volatile industry. But to do so, we must have a system that we all can live with — one that reduces casualties and deaths while allowing the industry needed flexibility to meet economic demands in the most pragmatic way possible. Isn’t this what regulatory reform is all about?

Mr. Scapellato, former the director of the Office of Motor Carriers Research and Standards in the Federal Highway Administration, is now managing a safety and highway consulting business in Charleston, S.C.