U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

85–596 2014

WRONG WAY: THE IMPACT OF FMCSA’S HOURS 

OF SERVICE REGULATION ON SMALL BUSINESSES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONTRACTING AND 

WORKFORCE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

UNITED STATES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

NOVEMBER 21, 2013 

Small Business Committee Document Number 113–044 

Available via the GPO Website: www.fdsys.gov 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Congress.#13
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri, Chairman 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

BLAINE LUETKEMER, Missouri 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

RICHARD HANNA, New York 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

KERRY BENTIVOLIO, Michigan 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

NYDIA VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York, Ranking Member 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

YVETTE CLARKE, New York 

JUDY CHU, California 

JANICE HAHN, California 

DONALD PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

GRACE MENG, New York 

BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

RON BARBER, Arizona 

ANN McLANE KUSTER, New Hampshire 

PATRICK MURPHY, Florida 

LORI SALLEY, Staff Director 

PAUL SASS, Deputy Staff Director 

BARRY PINELES, Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL DAY, Minority Staff Director 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Hon. Richard Hanna ................................................................................................ 1 

Hon. Grace Meng ..................................................................................................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Hon. Anne S. Ferro, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, United States Department of Transportation, Washington, DC ............. 4 

Duane Long, Chairman, Longistics, Research Triangle Park, NC, testifying 

on behalf of the American Trucking Association ............................................... 23 

Tilden Curl, Jr., Tecco Trucking, Inc., Olympia, WA, testifying on behalf 

of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association ................................. 24 

Brian Evans, President-Owner, L&L Freight Services, Inc., Cabot, AR, testifying on behalf of the Transportation Intermediaries Association .................. 26 

Paul P. Jovanis, Ph.D., Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Director Transportation Operations Program, Larson Transportation Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA ...................... 28 

APPENDIX 

Prepared Statements: 

Hon. Anne S. Ferro, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, United States Department of Transportation, Washington, 

DC .................................................................................................................. 39 

Duane Long, Chairman, Longistics, Research Triangle Park, NC, testifying on behalf of the American Trucking Association .............................. 49 

Tilden Curl, Jr., Tecco Trucking, Inc., Olympia, WA, testifying on behalf 

of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association ......................... 72 

Brian Evans, President-Owner, L&L Freight Services, Inc., Cabot, AR, 

testifying on behalf of the Transportation Intermediaries Association .... 85 

Paul P. Jovanis, Ph.D., Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, 

Director Transportation Operations Program, Larson Transportation 

Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA ....... 89 

Questions for the Record: 

None. 

Answers for the Record: 

None. 

Additional Material for the Record: 

AGC of America ................................................................................................ 99 

ARTBA - American Road & Transportation Builders Association ............... 103 

CVTA - Commercial Vehicle Training Association ........................................ 109 

Letter from Melissa Eichholz, President, Prospect Transportation, Inc. 

& Alternative Fuels Transportation to Hon. Richard Hanna ................... 112 

Truck Crash Victims/Survivors & Safety Groups on Truck Driver Hours 

of Service Rule .............................................................................................. 113 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

(1) 

WRONG WAY: THE IMPACT OF FMCSA’S 

HOURS OF SERVICE REGULATION ON 

SMALL BUSINESSES 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONTRACTING AND WORKFORCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2360, Rayburn House Office Building. Hon. Richard Hanna [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Hanna, Tipton, Huelskamp, Rice, 

Meng, and Clarke. 

Chairman HANNA. I would like to thank today’s witnesses for 

appearing before the Committee today to discuss the effects of the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s recently enacted 

Hours-of-Service regulation on Small Business. Before I read the 

rest of my statement, I would like to thank the FMCSA administrator, Ann Ferro for being here. While we may disagree deeply on 

this issue, I always appreciate how forthcoming you have been, and 

it is kind of you to be here. 

On July 1, 2013, the FMCSA enacted its new rule of Hours of 

Service rule for Commercial Drivers. Among the rule’s many provisions, the revised 34-hour restart requirements have caused the 

most damage to the integrity of the rulemaking process and our nation’s economy, particularly small businesses. Whether it is a small 

carrier transporting goods to the West Coast or a local grocery 

store awaiting a delivery shipment, when truckers are slowed, 

small businesses suffer. The Small Business Committee is deeply 

concerned about the impact of these new regulations on small businesses. 

The Moving Ahead for Progress, MAP 21, required the FMCSA 

to conduct a statistically valid field study on the then-proposed 34- 

hour restart provision to measure the effects of the proposed rule 

on both large and small trucking operators. This study was due to 

Congress by September 30, 2013. It has not yet been delivered. 

Under the MAP–21 provisions, Congress intended to have the 

study completed before the enactment of the new rule; however, 

even with the field study unfinished, the FMCSA finalized and enacted these untested new Hours-of-Service regulations. 

Since July, small businesses, workers, and consumers across 

America have raised serious concerns about the restrictive 34-hour 

restart provisions of the rule which went into effect without being 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

2 

backed by solid data, research, or a representative sample of the 

trucking industry. 

While the FMCSA estimate that the new rule would cost truckers less than one percent of revenue per year and impacted less 

than 15 percent of commercial drivers, the trucking industry, estimates that the Hours-of-Service rule, cost $376 million annually. 

By any measure, this is a large sum of money and costs jobs. 

In fact, the latest American Transportation Research Institute 

(ATRI) survey of commercial drivers found that nearly 70 percent 

have lost pay since the enactment of the rule. The survey also 

found that 80 percent of carriers are experiencing a loss in productivity. 

The trucking industry is a key link in the small business supply 

chain. Not only are many trucking companies small businesses, but 

also nearly every type of small business in our country—food, logging, cement, retail, apparel, asphalt—depends on efficient, ontime, reliable trucking to sell, move, and use their goods. 

Most disturbingly, there is a case to be made that the rule does 

not only cause economic harm, but may also make our roads less 

safe. 

In the past, when drivers completed the 60- or 70-hour work 

week, he or she would need to spend 34 hours not driving to reset 

their week clock to zero hours. Now, the restart time must include 

drivers resetting for two consecutive periods between 1 AM and 5 

AM. 

The new rule therefore compels some truckers to stop driving by 

7 PM in order to take the most advantage for the restart and begin 

driving again at 5 AM two days later. Commercial motor vehicle 

drivers often drive at night, both as a matter of necessity and convenience. The FMCSA, in effect, is pushing truckers onto the road 

at an earlier time in the day during morning and evening rush 

hours, slowing them down and prompting safety concerns. 

I look forward to hearing more about the new rules of service 

and how they have affected small businesses across America, and 

I want to again express to my appreciation to Administrator Ann 

Ferro for appearing today. 

I also want to take just a moment. This is a letter that I received 

the day before yesterday from the Prospect Transportation Company, a woman-owned business, been in business I think since the 

1950s or before, and I will try to get to the meat of it here. She 

says, ‘‘Unfortunately, the 34-hour restart provision’s specific requirement of two periods of off between 1 AM and 5 AM has taken 

away the quality of life, reduced the productivity, as well as disrupted the drivers’ normal sleep schedule and has done nothing to 

show its improved safety.’’ 

And I will give you a copy of this letter and I submit it for the 

record. 

Ms. MENG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

With more than $600 billion in revenue in 2012, the trucking 

sector is the backbone of our nation’s economy. Employing nearly 

seven million individuals, it is essential to the success of America’s 

companies that depend on the timely delivery of their goods to customers around the globe, and not surprisingly, like so many other 

industries, the trucking industry is dominated by small businesses. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

3 

In fact, more than 97 percent of trucking companies maintain fleets 

with fewer than 20 trucks. 

Central to the performance of this industry is its ability to operate in a safe manner for its employees, its consumers, and the public that shares the road. On average, truck crashes are responsible 

for nearly 4,000 deaths and 100,000 injuries every year. In an attempt to reduce these accidents caused by sleep deprivation, the 

Federal government has been regulating hours of service for truck 

drivers since 1937. 

These rules have gone through a number of changes over the 

years in responses to evolving research on driver fatigue and traffic-related accident patterns. This July, after years of lawsuits and 

debate by industry participants and public safety advocates, the 

newest version of these rules went into effect. These new changes 

maintain the maximum driving limit at 11 hours but require that 

it take place within a 14-hour period. Drivers are now limited to 

one 34-hour restart in a seven day period and required to take 

periodic 30-minute breaks. Such provisions were included to ensure 

that drivers were better rested when they are behind the wheel. 

Taken as a whole, the new rules represent a significant change in 

how and when truckers will be able to operate. 

From a public safety perspective, many have suggested that the 

rule falls short and does not go far enough to address driver fatigue. By not reducing the 11-hour driving limit, some believe that 

the rule will not be effective in reducing driver fatigue. Similarly, 

the 34-hour start rule could be used in a manner that would result 

in operators being able to drive more hours than before. Such outcomes could lead to more tired drivers on the road and adversely 

impact highway safety. 

From the industry perspective, we continue to hear that the rules 

are costly and burdensome. A recent study by the American Transportation Research Institute found that the changes FMCSA made 

to the restart requirement will ultimately have a net annual cost 

of up to $376 million, rather than the net benefit of $133 million 

the agency claimed. In addition, the ATRI found that the rule has 

led to a productivity decrease of 3 to 4 percent. This has led many 

carriers to have to spend more to achieve the same level of performance as they did prior to the rule’s implementation. 

Finally, research has indicated that the new rule has increased 

drivers’ dissatisfaction during a time when there is driver shortage 

and led to no changes in safety performance. Such outcomes call 

into question the justification for the rule. 

Taken as a whole, the rule reduces driver flexibility. This tradeoff will undoubtedly affect drivers as weather delays and the uncertainty associated with loading and unloading often require them to 

be highly adaptable. By requiring mandatory breaks and two consecutive nights at home, operators will be less able to tailor their 

schedules to the constantly changing factors that they confront 

each week. 

Today, we will examine all of these claims and how the Hoursof-Service rules are affecting small trucking companies, as well as 

their potential to reduce traffic accidents. As with so many rules, 

analysis done prior to implementation can only tell us so much. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

4 

Time will only show what the true effect of this rule will be on the 

industry and on public safety. 

With this in mind, it is imperative that Congress continue to 

oversee the rule’s implementation. Doing so will help ensure that 

new regulations are striking the proper balance between promoting 

safer roads with the economic impact on small trucking companies 

and their drivers. Overall, it is important that we seek to achieve 

our policy objectives without unnecessarily burdening those small 

businesses that are subject to these regulations. 

In advance of the testimony, I want to thank Administrator 

Ferro and all our witnesses today who traveled here for both their 

participation and insights into this important topic. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairman HANNA. Thank you. 

If Committee members have opening statements, they may submit them for the record. 

You are familiar with how the clocks work. We want to hear 

from you so, you know. 

Administrator Ferro, you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF ANNE FERRO, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Ms. FERRO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Meng, thank you very much for 

this opportunity today to talk about the hours-of-service rule and 

its impact on small business. 

The top priority of FMCSA is safety—reducing fatalities and injuries due to large truck and bus crashes. According to NHTSA’s 

most recent report, in 2012, nearly 4,000 people were killed in 

crashes involving trucks. That is a 4 percent increase over 2011, 

which was actually a higher number than 2010. Truck drivers work 

some of the toughest and longest hours of any business, and in 

some of the most difficult operating conditions. It is a demanding 

and unappreciated job, certainly under-appreciated. 

FMCSA’s changes to the hours-of-service rules will help truck 

drivers avoid the long-term health problems that can be caused by 

these demanding schedules, and will also help prevent an estimated 1,400 crashes, 560 injuries, and save 19 lives a year by reducing the risk of fatigue-related crashes. These 19 lives could be 

your community’s kindergarten class, could be your son’s baseball 

team, could be members of your extended family. 

This rule was initiated by congressional requirements that date 

back to the 1995 Interstate Commerce Commission Termination 

Act. After a series of lawsuits, FMCSA developed the current rule 

through solid data and an unprecedented level of transparency, soliciting feedback from thousands of stakeholders, including small 

business owners, drivers, shippers, safety advocates, law enforcement, and trucking companies. Recently, the D.C. Circuit Court 

largely upheld the rule. 

Critics have focused their attention on the change we made to 

the 34-hour restart provision. A restart allows a driver to work 

more than the maximum limits of 60 hours in seven days or 70 

hours in eight days. The rule limits that restart, and it is a volSBREP-219 with DISTILLER

5 

untary restart, to once a week, which does reduce a driver’s work 

week to 70 hours on average from the 80 hours that were potentially available under the prior rule. Again, a restart is a voluntary 

tool that only a small percentage of drivers really need to use. 

Someone driving 60 hours or less does not ever need to use that 

restart. 

DOT began examining the possibility of a restart as early as 

1998 when we first assembled an expert panel to reveal the sleep 

science associated with excessively long work periods. Prior to 

2003, there was no restart, meaning drivers found themselves 

many times a long way from home, waiting to have the hours to 

be able to drive again. That 1998 panel recommended ‘‘a continuous recovery time of sufficient length, to include at least two midnight to 6 AM uninterrupted time periods.’’ In other words, the 

Washington State University study that is at issue today, confirmed over a decade of sleep research relating to the effects of fatigue and CMV operations. But we still sought extensive public 

input on the WSU study, and in fact, through that input, we were 

convinced to tighten up that period of off-duty and rest time to include instead of midnight to 6 AM, a restart that included a period 

of 1 AM to 5 AM, with no loss in safety. 

Many critics want us to return to the restart provision that was 

implemented in 2003. It is important for you to know that that restart provision that the courts criticized when they threw out the 

2003 rule, is the same restart that had only one lab study, a lab 

study with fewer participants than anything we did. In fact, a lab 

study that was carried out by ATA through a congressional earmark. 

This rule will help save the trucking industry, and actually our nation, the public at large, an estimated $87 billion a year in the 

costs and implications of crashes. In fact, even ATA’s own research 

is failing to show a significant impact on a driver’s hours. Their recent ATRI report that was released shows that less than a third 

of 1 percent of drivers’ logbooks actually changed after the rule 

went into effect July 1. Even we estimated a larger impact than 

that. The only data they have produced to show the drivers’ schedules did change was through that survey, but their logbook examples and their logbook analysis showed a very small change. 

Bringing the restart research full circle, I am happy to report 

that the agency has been very diligent in pressing ahead as soon 

as MAP–21 requirements and the congressional mandate for a field 

study on the 34-hour restart get underway. We have completed the 

data collection, and I am looking forward to sharing our findings 

with Congress as soon as the full report is complete. 

I want to draw on my experience, my very recent experience and 

a really treasured one, where I had the opportunity to ride along 

for two days with Leo Wilkins, a professional owner-operator. My 

time with this remarkable small business owner helped me better 

understand the challenges truck drivers face and to experience 

firsthand what the agency’s safety rules mean to a driver’s daily 

life. I also saw how the shipper and receiver drive the unpredictability that plagues the trucking industry. Exempt from the Fair 

Labor Standards Act for more than seven decades, truck drivers, 

by and large, are paid by the mile or by the load, and the hours 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

6 

a driver might spend waiting for a load could cost that driver a 

day’s pay. Driver pay and extreme loading dock delays have a significant impact on a driver’s ability to be efficient, professional, and 

safe. In short, uncompensated delays force drivers to press legal 

and physical limits to capture that day’s pay. The logistics industry 

gets this time free on the backs of drivers and the backs of small 

business. Uncompensated detention time needs your attention because what makes the job better often makes the job and the driver 

safer. 

Keeping people safe is not a choice. It must be achieved with a 

mix of effective programs and enforcement that sets a level playing 

field where companies that put safety first are not competing 

against folk that are cutting corners or pushing limits. 

Saving lives is FMCSA’s fundamental mission. It is our solemn 

obligation to the public, and again, I thank you for inviting me to 

speak on this topic today and look forward to your questions. 

Chairman HANNA. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

I am going to ask Mr. Rice to—— 

Mr. RICE. Yes, Ms. Ferro, thank you again for meeting with us 

a couple weeks ago, and thank you for being here today. I know 

that it is not the easiest position to be faced with all these questions, but you know, there are a lot of concerns. We want to make 

sure that we do this right. Everybody is concerned with safety. Everybody is also concerned with efficiency and we do not want to 

take people—their ability to do business away from them. So we do 

not want to insert the government into their lives any more than 

we need to. 

The rule that was in effect before, you say it was put into effect 

in 2003? 

Ms. FERRO. That is correct. 

Mr. RICE. And what is the short version difference between 

what is proposed today and the 2003 rule? 

Ms. FERRO. Sure. Three key differences. 

The 34-hour restart is retained. Its use is limited to once in a 

week or once in 168 hours. That restart needs to include two periods between 1 AM and 5 AM, two periods of off-duty time in order 

to ensure the driver gets that kind of recovery sleep they need. And 

it incorporates a 30-minute break during the driver’s workday, 

sometime before any driving occurs after the eighth hour on duty, 

time anywhere within that eight. 

Mr. RICE. What was the experience, the actual effect of the 2003 

rule on injuries, fatalities, accidents, so forth? 

Ms. FERRO. I would say that that question is still under analysis. We generally gauge the impact of our rules and the impact 

of our work within the mix of strategies that really goes into 

achieving safety on our highways. And while the fatal crash rate 

was I think collectively and with the economy we successfully lowered it to its lowest point in history in 2009, it has steadily climbed 

a few percent each year, and that is really the fatal and injury 

crash rate relating to truck and bus crashes. 

Mr. RICE. Now, today, is it not 20, 30 percent below what it was 

15 years ago? 

Ms. FERRO. That is correct. That is correct. 

Mr. RICE. Okay. So it is way down? 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

7 

Ms. FERRO. We are very pleased. And we continue to drive it. 

Drive it, drive it, drive it lower to the extent feasible. 

Mr. RICE. All right. And in this study that was done, how many 

people participated in that? 

Ms. FERRO. Are you referring to the current study or the—— 

Mr. RICE. The one that has been done but it is not completed. 

How many people were in that? 

Ms. FERRO. Oh, on our field study we have got 106 drivers participating. Yeah, a good mix of industry types. 

Mr. RICE. And in the Washington study, how many were in 

that? 

Ms. FERRO. Well, I will need to provide the detail for the record, 

but there were at least, I believe, 9 to 12 in the first round and 

perhaps 15. It is a two-phase study. So combined I think it was 

close to 18 or 20 subjects. 

Mr. RICE. All right. Today, how many trucking fatalities from 

trucking accidents are there average in America today? 

Ms. FERRO. Again, NHTSA just released its most recent data, 

what they call the FARS report, and that identified just about 

4,000 fatalities related to truck-related crashes. That excludes the 

bus piece. 

Mr. RICE. And your best estimate of the effect on that if these 

new rules—as these new rules are implemented, what is your best 

estimate? 

Ms. FERRO. The analysis we incorporated into the rule development is 19 lives per year are expected to be saved from this rule. 

Mr. RICE. Which is, you know, less than a half percent. 

Ms. FERRO. Nineteen lives. Each life, each one of those lives is 

very significant. 

Mr. RICE. Actually, it is such a small percentage that we will 

not even know if these rules are having any effect, will we? 

Ms. FERRO. The individuals whose lives are saved will know 

every day. I know it is tough to prove a negative. 

Mr. RICE. It is nice to say that and it tugs at heartstrings, but 

the truth is that that sample is so small that you will not know 

whether this rule has any effect or not. 

Ms. FERRO. I disagree. Every life is precious. One life lost is— 

you may think that sounds trifle, but I disagree. 

Mr. RICE. My point is we do not know if it is going to save any 

lives. 

Ms. FERRO. Well, we have got 1,400 crashes that are expected 

to be reduced, 450 injuries that are expected to be avoided, 19 lives 

saved every year. It adds up. 

Mr. RICE. The same is so small that we will not know that this 

rule has any effect. 

Ms. FERRO. Well, it is not a sample. Those are actual lives. And 

I will absolutely continue to disagree vehemently on that point 

with you. I think you also uphold the preciousness of each life. 

Mr. RICE. Oh, I do, but where I disagree with you is I do not 

think that you know, and you cannot tell from your study which 

is not complete, whether it is going to save one life or not. But we 

do know that it is going to have a tremendous economic effect on 

the trucking industry. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

8 

Did your study in its analysis of these 19 lives that could be 

saved, did it take into account the fact that truckers are now going 

to be moved into rush hour traffic? That the driving hours are 

going to be forced into rush hour traffic because you are taking 

them off of the highway at the times when they can drive with no 

traffic? 

Ms. FERRO. You know, it is so interesting, and I think that is 

part of the—— 

Mr. RICE. Just a yes or no. Did it—— 

Ms. FERRO. Let me say no. This rule does not put trucks in traffic any more than they already are in traffic. 

Mr. RICE. Okay. 

Ms. FERRO. Trucks are—— 

Mr. RICE. So you are saying your study did not take that into 

account? 

Ms. FERRO. The study accounted for the impact and the cost on 

industry of this rule upwards of half a billion dollars. We absolutely identified it. 

Mr. RICE. I am not talking about the cost. What I am asking you 

is did your study take into account the fact that under this rule 

truckers are going to be taken off the road in early morning hours 

when they want to drive when there is no traffic and it is safer and 

forced to drive in hours—in rush hour where it is going to be slower and it is going to be more dangerous? Did it take that into account? 

Ms. FERRO. Absolutely. The reg eval identified that roughly 7 

percent of the 3 million drivers out there operating that are affected by this rule are impacted by that one-time a week use, 1 AM 

to 5 AM inclusion, 34-hour restart, 7 percent. 

Mr. RICE. You still have not answered my question. 

Ms. FERRO. Yes, but what my point is, 93 percent of all operations do not change. They continue to operate. Trucks continue to 

operate overnight schedules. 

Mr. RICE. Mr. Chairman, are we going to do another round of 

questions? I see am over my time, but are we going to do another 

round? 

Chairman HANNA. Yes. 

Mr. RICE. Okay, thank you. 

Chairman HANNA. Ms. Clarke. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Ranking Member. 

I have no questions at this time. Thank you. 

Chairman HANNA. Mr. Tipton. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thanks for taking the time to be here. I appreciate, 

and I think everyone on this panel shares your patience. It is something as Americans that we all value every life. But I was curious. 

In the opening part of your statement you said the purpose of this 

is actually safety, and you attributed 4,000 people have been killed 

in crashes involving trucks. Does your data show that all 4,000 

crashes were caused by the truck or was it caused by the other 

driver in the crash? 

Ms. FERRO. Our data does not include an analysis of crash causation. The last time we were able to do that was—— 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

9 

Mr. TIPTON. So you are taking the leap that it was the truck 

driver’s fault. You do not know. 

Ms. FERRO. Out of 4,000 crashes, we certainly know that—— 

Mr. TIPTON. You do? 

Ms. FERRO. Absolutely. 

Mr. TIPTON. It is the truck driver’s fault? 

Ms. FERRO. I was about to complete the response. In 2003, we 

carried out a thing called the Large Truck Crash Causation Study, 

a very important study where we analyzed individual crashes to 

determine causation factors, and that analysis results in data that 

demonstrates up to 40 percent of fatal crashes are in the hands of 

the truck driver. Actually, I am afraid that is closer to 35 percent, 

and 45 percent injury crashes are related to actions by the truck 

driver. So that is the most recent—— 

Mr. TIPTON. Far less than half. I just wanted to kind of clarify 

because—— 

Ms. FERRO. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. That is the most—— 

Mr. TIPTON.—you were intimating in your testimony that this 

was caused by trucks. You are now stating less than 50 percent of 

this was actually caused by the truck drivers. 

Ms. FERRO. No, no, no. I am always very careful to say 4,000 

crahses—4,000 deaths in crashes relating or involving trucks and 

buses. It does not attribute fault. And in this case, the rule estimates 19 lives saved relating to truck-caused crashes. 

Mr. TIPTON. I think that is just where we want to be very cautious that you do not overreach in terms of trying to put in a regulatory process that when we talk about families, some of these 

truck drivers are trying to provide for their families. They are paid 

by the mile, and when you are shutting them down and they are 

not able to actually produce and generate revenue for those families, there are going to be some real impacts. 

I am curious, how many logs did you look at in terms of what 

drivers in terms of trying to develop a rule? 

Ms. FERRO. Well, I will provide that for the record. We certainly 

included a log survey, driver surveys, as well as logbook analysis 

in our rulebook development. 

Mr. TIPTON. Okay. So you do not have any idea of how many 

logs you actually looked at. 

Ms. FERRO. We look at logs every day across the country. 

Mr. TIPTON. You look at logs—— 

Ms. FERRO. But in terms of an actual study, unbiased study and 

a very clear study, that is actually documented in the reg eval. 

Mr. TIPTON. I believe by your estimation, 15 percent of truck 

drivers operate at the maximum weekly. Is that correct? 

Ms. FERRO. Yes. In our estimation, it was 15 percent of the 

driving population impacted by this rule because of the nature of 

their operations being overnight and on the road. 

Mr. TIPTON. How is this going to impact the other 85 percent? 

Ms. FERRO. Actually, insignificant to none. 

Mr. TIPTON. Insignificant to none? 

Ms. FERRO. That is correct. 

Mr. TIPTON. So are they going to be allowed to use the same 

34-hour restart? 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

10 

Ms. FERRO. They may. It is voluntary. A driver operating 60 

hours or less does not need the restart. 

Mr. TIPTON. Does the rule imply that? 

Ms. FERRO. Oh, that has been a longstanding rule. 

Mr. TIPTON. That is a longstanding rule. 

Ms. FERRO. That did not require anything new. 

Mr. TIPTON. Okay. 

Ms. FERRO. Yeah. 

Mr. TIPTON. Okay, Administrator, you say in past research you 

have found 240,000 drivers work an average of 70 hours or more 

per week. Can you tell me how your 2007 field study shows that 

drivers work that much time on average each week? 

Ms. FERRO. I will certainly follow that up with—on the record 

with that analysis. Yes. 

Mr. TIPTON. Okay. If you can follow up and give us some written testimony—— 

Ms. FERRO. Absolutely. 

Mr. TIPTON.—we would certainly appreciate that. 

And you stated that your restart study will be delayed until next 

spring. I assume that is in part due to your peer review process? 

Ms. FERRO. It is under review as we speak. That is correct. 

Mr. TIPTON. Okay. Did you have your 2011 Hours-of-Service 

Regulatory Impact Study peer reviewed? 

Ms. FERRO. Generally, it receives extensive review through the 

Notice and Comment Rulemaking Process. 

Mr. TIPTON. Generally, is it going to have peer review is my 

question? 

Ms. FERRO. Well, that is completed. The studies that are incorporated and used in that analysis are peer reviewed studies. 

Mr. TIPTON. And that is completed? 

Ms. FERRO. That is correct. Yes. 

Mr. TIPTON. Good. 

You know, I would like to shift a little bit, if I may, and this is 

going to go over actually into some oil field work. Was this rule a 

restatement or a revision? 

Ms. FERRO. Which rule is that, sir? 

Mr. TIPTON. Okay, this in regards to the FMCSA 1962 guidance 

in regards to off-duty for the Statement of Guidance on CMV truck 

drivers subject to the OHS exemptions under 40 CFR. 

Ms. FERRO. Yes, Congressman, what we refer to generally as 

the oil field exemption is something that the ICC put in place over 

50 years ago, and there are two pieces to it. The first provides any 

trucking operation or driver servicing an oil field has certain special treatment under the hours-of-service rule. They are allowed a 

24-hour restart regardless, and that is longstanding. That guidance 

has not been in dispute. 

Mr. TIPTON. And I just want to clarify for me was this a revision of the rule—— 

Ms. FERRO. No. 

Mr. TIPTON.—or was it a restatement of the rule? 

Ms. FERRO. No, the second piece relates to specialized equipment and those eligible for certain off-duty time accounting. It was 

not a change. It was a restatement of the guidance that has been 

in place for 50 years. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

11 

Mr. TIPTON. That is a restatement. Did that go through the formal rulemaking process? 

Ms. FERRO. It went through the formal notice and comment 

process. It is not a rulemaking. 

Mr. TIPTON. It is not a rulemaking. 

Ms. FERRO. It is not a rulemaking. No. 

Mr. TIPTON. Is it having the impact of a rule? 

Ms. FERRO. I believe it is not having the impact of a rule. It is 

guidance that has been on the books for 50 years. The origins of 

the restatement were the various ways, the differences in the manner in which it was being enforced across the country as our country’s energy independence has really expanded and the development and exploration has expanded. Companies who were operating in four or five regions at a time noticed that it was being enforced by local officers differently, and they said can you please get 

some clarification out there. That is what we did. It prompted some 

real concerns about those who interpreted it differently. But again, 

we restated the guidance, and we have worked very intensely with 

industry to ensure that they understand there is an exemption request for that specialized equipment that fits in a gray area and 

that they need to go ahead and submit their requests for consideration and for public notice. And that process has begun in some 

cases. 

Mr. TIPTON. Okay. I am out of time but I think we are going 

to have a second round. We will follow up a little bit on that. 

Thank you. 

Ms. FERRO. Okay. Okay. You are welcome. 

Chairman HANNA. Mr. Huelskamp. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate having this hearing today. This is an important issue to a number of 

my constituents. I receive certainly complaints about this and a 

couple questions. And I am sorry, I came late. To pronounce your 

last name, Ms. Ferro? 

Ms. FERRO. Ferro, that is correct. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Okay. Well, thank you, Ms. Ferro. I appreciate that. 

Ms. FERRO. Certainly. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. And I appreciate your comment ‘‘all life is 

precious.’’ That is actually not the official line of the administration, and I would love to visit with you further about that on a 

number of life issues. But I want to ask a little more follow-up 

questions of my colleague from Colorado as far as the MAP study 

is required under the law. 

Was that required before you could finalize the restart rule or 

was that just something you could do whenever you decided it 

needed to be complete? 

Ms. FERRO. The MAP-21 field study of our 34-hour restart provisions was something that Congress said complete. It did not connect it to the effective date of the rule. And the rule, of course at 

the time, was already—had already been finalized for over a year 

and published for just about a year. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. And it was being enforced at the time? 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

12 

Ms. FERRO. Well, it took effect July 1 of last year. Of this year, 

pardon me, July 1 of this year. Time flies. We are already in December. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. And there is no way you could get it done in 

12 months to have it completed? 

Ms. FERRO. No, no, no. The mandate, the MAP–21 mandate was 

something that we took on immediately as soon as that bill was 

signed to begin identifying volunteers, companies that would volunteer to participate in this kind of a field study. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. I understand. But that is 16 months later 

and you are telling me it is still not complete. 

Ms. FERRO. Yeah. Our data collection was completed this summer and the report itself is now under peer review. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. So when do you actually expect to complete 

that study and so folks outside the agency can actually review the 

study? There are some questions about previous studies from your 

agency. 

Ms. FERRO. Yeah. Well, I would like to say the upcoming 

months. I know one of the members just said in spring. Ideally, we 

will have it to you in the first quarter of the next calendar year. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Do you think it is effective to start the rule 

and then proceed with a study to determine whether it is really 

needed or not? 

Ms. FERRO. Well, again, the lab study on which the rule provision that is in question today is based is a very solid study, a twofaced study, again, based on over a decade of sleep science analysis 

and discussion on this topic. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. But the data on the truck crashes, how old 

is the data that is being used as the basis for this? 

Ms. FERRO. Well, we certainly used the Large Truck Crash Causation data. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. And when is that from? Is that not a decade 

old? 

Ms. FERRO. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Ten year old data and you still take 16 

months, still do not have this study done using 10-year-old data. 

Now, in that 10-year-old data from, again 2003, did it not presume—the baseline was I think 434,000 crashes per year. Is that 

correct? 

Ms. FERRO. Yes. And let us separate two separate things. The 

field study is not relying on any old data. The field study is relying 

on the conditions established in the congressional mandate under 

MAP–21. The 450,000 is a number that we used in some of the earlier research on the hours-of-service rule. That is correct. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. And so the crash data you are using though 

is 10 years old? 

Ms. FERRO. Yes, and you know, we have carried out an analysis 

moving forward using more current numbers that were not in existence at the time we were developing—— 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. And is this analysis public? 

Ms. FERRO. Actually, we just completed it based on the criticism 

that came out I think this week from one of the trade associations. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. The analysis, is it public? Is it published, 

ma’am, or is it still internal? 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

13 

Ms. FERRO. I will certainly make it public for the record. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. So in answer it has not been public as of 

today? 

Ms. FERRO. No, again, we just got the claim yesterday from one 

of the—— 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Well, no, it has taken you 10 years to update. 

I understand that takes time. You are using 10-year-old data. We 

have a 40 percent decrease in the crashes as part of this, and then 

it has taken you 16 months. You are still not done with the study. 

You still have not released it at all. It is still internal. You do not 

know whether it is even—well, you are saying it is not even going 

to be released this year, sometime in the spring, and then you come 

here and tell us you know exactly what the impact is when you do 

not have the study, it has not been peer reviewed, obviously. It has 

not been made public. I mean, this is actually what upsets my constituents. They understand the desire for safety, but they want it 

to be based on science. 

Ms. FERRO. That is right. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. And ability to actually work with folks that 

are in the field that do it every day. That drive a truck every day. 

And they are telling me this is not working and it is not making 

sense. There have been independent studies that have confirmed 

that in my opinion. It is costing us money and I think it is hurting 

particularly our independents that are out there driving. 

And one last thing, I see another issue, a National Pork Producers Council had proposed an exemption. Where is that at? 

Ms. FERRO. That is under consideration. And let us put that in 

two pieces but I want to quickly back up and remind you again you 

are combining data in two separate studies. The Washington State 

University Lab Study on which the 34-hour restart is based is a 

two-phase substantive lab study peer reviewed and absolutely solid 

outcome based on decades of sleep science research, unrelated to 

the crash data that you were referring to which was also part of 

the reg analysis, not part of the sleep science analysis. 

With regard to the exemption request by the Pork Producer 

Council, yes, they in fact did submit a request for an exemption 

from the 30-minute break, having nothing to do with the restart. 

The agency, recognizing that last year’s summer heat were extreme, I granted a one-time 90-day waiver. I have the authority to 

do that so over the summer, from the time—July 1 of this year, the 

pork producers and the other livestock industries they were representing, were operating, had a break from the 30-minute requirement. They also submitted an exemption request for a full two-year 

exemption from the 30-minute break. That is under review today. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. And do you anticipate granting that or what 

is your estimation? 

Ms. FERRO. I will wait until, again, I agree with you. We are 

very focused on research data-driven decisions in a very open process, and so I will let the data and the research—— 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. But the exemption request that you did 

grant, that was based on data? 

Ms. FERRO. That was a waiver request. That was not an exemption request. It was a 90-day waiver recognizing the impact that 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

14 

heat has on livestock and the extreme heats we had the summer 

before. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Well, there are extreme heats every summer 

I will note as well, ma’am. There is extreme cold as well. And as 

far as animal welfare, that is a very serious issue. And so I appreciate you continuing to look at that. And I would ask you to extend 

that as well. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. FERRO. Understood. Thank you. 

Chairman HANNA. Thank you. 

What is clear to me is that this is a philosophy, an ideology, but 

not a solution to a problem. If you are indeed a data-driven organization, why is it that the study simply—what was the rush to this? 

And I agree that the 19 lives, that percentage is conjecture. And 

there is no one here, and I find it disquieting that you would even 

think anybody here would not consider each life important. That is 

not the point. The point is the cost-benefit analysis associated with 

this. 

In your testimony you identified the economic benefit of the restart study rather than a benefit. A recent study found that the 

new restart rules have no net benefit. It will cost the industry up 

to 376 million, which you have heard. Additionally, a report compiled by the American Transportation Research Institute identified 

the changes to the HOS rule will have an operational impact on 

drivers’ wages over the road totaling $1.6 billion to $3.9 billion in 

annualized losses. And what do you say to somebody actually in 

the business who did not spend two days in a truck but spent a 

lifetime in a truck when she says the 1 AM to 5 AM is taking away 

the quality of life, reduced productivity, as well as disruption of the 

drivers’ normal sleep schedules, circadian rhythm, et cetera? And 

yet, you are supposed to be a data-driven organization. You know, 

a lot of this conversation is not about the 34-hour rule. Nobody is 

objecting to that, but everyone, myself and most people, I think, 

are objecting to the process and the arrogance associated with it. 

And I do not mean that personally, I mean that in general, that 

it is inflicting pain on people and yet all we are really asking is 

that you prove your point. 

So why did you rush to this, if you agree that you did? 

Ms. FERRO. We absolutely did not. So I certainly do not agree 

to that last point. There is no rushing involved. I think as the 

ranking member indicated in her opening statement, the hours-ofservice conditions under which drivers operate are, and will continue to be, hotly discussed because it impacts, absolutely, that 

driver’s quality of life, that individual’s ability to derive strong and 

successful and life-sustaining income, and it impacts small businesses. We recognize the impact on small business and on full aspects of the trucking industry of this rule and our analysis. It absolutely is data-based, research-based, fully vetted, unprecedented 

level of transparency throughout the development of this rule process which we started in 2010. So in terms of being either theorybased or philosophy or arrogant—— 

Chairman HANNA. But how can you—— 

Ms. FERRO.—we have been as open—— 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

15 

Chairman HANNA. Well, how can you say that when you do not 

take into consideration the change in the nature of the drivers’ 

workload, that you have actually through this process pushed 

someone into hours that are more convenient, less capable of moving around traffic because it is more congested, and yet you said 

yourself earlier you did not take that into consideration. So how is 

that a holistic study in any way when that very thing is something 

that everybody is talking about? And why is the agency so numb 

to the industry whose number one concern is safety? There is not 

a person I have spoken to about this issue that does not agree that 

safety is the most important issue, especially in our very litigious 

society and the cost of workman’s comp, et cetera. And yet here we 

sit, fighting back on a rule that the administration did not even see 

fit to finish a study to at least patronize us? That is where I come 

up with the term arrogance. 

Ms. FERRO. Well, yeah. And I would deny both arrogance and 

numbness. We are as sensitized to this industry and drivers’ conditions as any time in history when it comes to oversight of the truck 

industry. The fact, you know, when you start a rule and start a reg 

analysis, you look at the full population. Who is affected by it? Who 

comes under the oversight of this rule development itself and the 

hours-of-service rules? It is about three million drivers. And again, 

the hours-of-service rule itself that was put in place in 2003 has 

been litigated twice and a third time almost, so we really have only 

had uncertainty about this rule until today now that the Circuit 

Court has upheld the rule that we put in place and we finally got 

some certainty going forward. Again, it is a research- and datadriven rule. 

Looking at, and part of that analysis in the rule development includes who is affected by what changes, and what is the cost of 

that and what are the safety benefits. And we weigh all of that together. 

Congressman Rice earlier said, you know, ‘‘Who is not affected by 

it?’’ Well, again, almost 85 percent of the driving population continues to operate because the vast majority in ATA’s own submittal 

during the rulemaking process, the vast majority of their members’ 

drivers and drivers across the country run between 45 and 50 

hours a week on average. They never need the restart. 

Chairman HANNA. No, but that does not necessarily justify the 

restart for the other percentage. 

Ms. FERRO. You know, there are always tradeoffs and there are 

people impacted by this rule. There are people who were impacted 

by an 80-hour week, week after week after week. That is double 

time. That is what could be averaged under the prior rule without 

this restart. That has a level of health impact on drivers. Chronic 

fatigue has an impact on blood pressure, has an impact on diabetes. 

Chairman HANNA. But then how do you respond to Prospect 

Transportation, the lady whose letter I read. What do you say to 

her when she is telling you just the opposite and she actually sees 

these people every day. 

Ms. FERRO. Yeah. 

Chairman HANNA. And I do not want to sit here and say she 

is being disingenuous. I believe these people. And frankly, they are 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

16 

okay with the 34-hour rule from 2003. They are comfortable. They 

have learned to live with it, and you said yourself, it has been litigated a couple of times. But they find this excessive, unproven, and 

Congress under MAP–21 did ask to have a study completed. It was 

supposed to be done—the last time we met it was supposed to be 

done I think September 30th. Now we are saying it is spring. I 

mean, how do you expect people to be comfortable, respectfully, 

with a decision that looks so—just the nature of it looks frankly 

sloppy? 

Ms. FERRO. Yeah, I would like, with your agreement, of course, 

I would like to follow up with your constituent and talk with her 

about how they are applying the rules. It is clear from the work, 

again, we have been on the radio several times every month since 

long before the enactment of this rule to, again, listen to drivers’ 

questions. We are all across the country talking. We have got logbook examples on our website. I would very much like to follow up 

and find out how she is applying it because in many cases we are 

finding that there is a misunderstanding in this restart. So many 

drivers do not need it. They are telling their own safety managers 

they do not need it and safety managers saying, ‘‘Yes, you do.’’ Because, again, it is a voluntary tool to reset a clock, but if the clock 

does not need resetting, you do not need to get into that condition. 

Chairman HANNA. But a lot of people find themselves there. 

I will yield to Ranking Member Meng. Thank you. 

Ms. MENG. Thank you. 

The number of people killed in large truck- and bus-related 

crashes has declined by about 29 percent between 2000 and 2011. 

What do you think was the main reason for this decline? 

Ms. FERRO. It is a combination—again, safety comes about 

through very intense effort by a wide range of folks—by industry, 

by government—state, local, federal—by enforcement, by safety advocates, by the businesses that purchase the services of that trucking sector, and generally a recognition, again, that safety is a very 

solid bottom-line number when you have got safety as a top priority. And so together, technology investment, improved analysis of 

the carriers that are operating unsafely, and actions against them, 

tougher authorities that Congress has given us over the past few 

years, all of those efforts combined continue, and we will continue 

to work together to drive that number down and save lives. 

Ms. MENG. How significant of a problem is driver fatigue 

amongst truckers today and what role does it continue to play in 

car crash, bus crash fatalities? 

Ms. FERRO. Our analysis, both that we used in the rule, as well 

as what we have spoken to in many ways, comes about through 

several different datasets, including in a Large Truck Crash Causation Study. In our rule development and evaluation, we used a 

range from 7 percent to 13 percent and analyzed the costs and benefits using both pieces of data. 

Ms. MENG. What research and data has FMCSA used to support 

this conclusion of, I am sorry, truck crash—this conclusion? 

Ms. FERRO. The conclusion on the fatigue-rated research? 

Again, it goes back to the very individualized analysis of each of 

the crashes in that Large Truck Crash Causation Study. We have 

also carried out surveys of drivers. In the past, in one survey in 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

17 

particular, a significant number and percentage of drivers, certainly better than 30 percent, identified that they did, in fact, drive 

tired and had had an experience of, you know, sort of a brief moment of sleep at the wheel. And that was through surveys. That 

was not pre-crash, but that was absolutely more than anecdotal. 

Ms. MENG. Besides fatigue, are there any other factors that contribute to these types of crashes? 

Ms. FERRO. There are a wide range of factors that contribute to 

crashes—speeding, aggressive lane changing, unsafe braking or 

other equipment, inadequate visibility, the actions of the passenger 

vehicle or other vehicle operating around and the need for that 

driver, the professional driver to take evasive action. There are a 

whole series. Weather. There are many contributors. But again, the 

more significant contributors, the highest contributor is going to be 

speed. And any other action that could contribute to the inability 

to respond quickly, such as fatigue, if someone is going too fast for 

conditions and they come across a line of traffic, is going to compound the result of that crash. 

Ms. MENG. Thank you, I yield back. 

Ms. FERRO. Thank you. 

Chairman HANNA. How do you respond to the truckers in the 

room? I mean, basically, you are saying they are wrong and you are 

right; that the rule will help them. They do not think it does. According to a recent study survey of the CMV operations and carriers, more than 80 percent of the carriers report significant impact 

on their operations as a result of changes the agency has made to 

the 34-hour restart. You say it is 15 percent. You know, and how 

do you respond to criticisms from small business trucking operators, the new Hours-of-Service regulations actually increase fatigue? I am just—— 

Ms. FERRO. What do I say? 

Chairman HANNA. Yeah, what do you say? 

Ms. FERRO. Well, first I start by separating those two data 

points that you talked about—the 80 percent and the impact on income. The survey—there are two things that ATRI released this 

week which was part of the American Trucking Association. It included a logbook analysis that identified that less than a third of 

1 percent of the drivers’ logbooks showed any change in hours of 

operation pre-rule and post-July 1 of this year. So that was the sort 

of hard, just clear and cut data from logbooks. A separate piece 

that derived that 80 percent is a survey that is sort of one of those 

kind of vote early, vote often concepts, an online survey that they 

solicited their members to respond to. I would be happy to understand what is behind that survey. That is what I have not seen 

from them yet, but again, we take this very seriously. It is important to recognize that this rule and the prior hours-of-service rule 

does impact some drivers’ pay, and it absolutely impacts small 

businesses. And in some cases, large businesses. 

Detention time, inadequate compensation, 36 cents a mile for a 

driver running 70 miles a week is just unconscionable. That is the 

average pay. 

Chairman HANNA. Well, you are not proposing—you are not sitting here telling people—I mean, that is the market. You know, 

that has got nothing to do with this issue. Why do you even menSBREP-219 with DISTILLER

18 

tion that? I mean, if you are going to criticize people for what they 

are paying, I can appreciate that, but that is not the point. We are 

saying that you are actually making it worse for the very people 

that you are saying you want to help. 

Ms. FERRO. No, I mention it because the survey in question 

asked drivers about their pay and had it been impacted pre or post. 

So again, the logbook analysis says no change. Drivers being solicited, or whoever responded to the survey is saying big change in 

my income. So, and in terms of loss, so absolutely, it is very important to understand what is behind that data. We would be happy 

to look at it more closely and discuss it and provide our analysis 

for the record. 

Chairman HANNA. Are you open to rolling this rule back and 

waiting till the survey? 

Ms. FERRO. No, absolutely not. This rule is a solid rule. It has 

been upheld by the court. It is based on sound research. However, 

there continue to be and should continue to be a discussion about 

the hours of service and continued sensitivity to the challenges that 

a lack of predictability imposes on a driver in the context of a set 

of hours. And so we are pursuing a pilot project that combines the 

results of some split sleep research we did that we finished after 

this rule went into effect and the electronic logging device rule that 

we were all so eager to press forward on, but take advantage of 

those two pieces. We do not have to wait for the ELD rule to be 

complete—to analyze the benefits of trying to get towards this 

question of improved flexibility while maintaining our effective 

safety oversight. 

Chairman HANNA. So if you find out you are wrong you are saying that you are open to changing it because if you are studying 

things but you have already enacted a rule, so I guess I find that 

a little odd. 

Ms. FERRO. Well, I hope I can continue to explain to you how 

in fact it is absolutely to be expected and a solid approach that an 

agency drives a very transparent discussion on a rule that has this 

level of an effect on folks, on at least 15 percent of the driving population but not the other 85. Yeah. 

Chairman HANNA. Mr. Rice. 

Mr. RICE. Thank you, sir. 

I have got information here in front of me. I guess this survey 

you are talking about is from the American Transportation Research Institute? 

Ms. FERRO. Right. 

Mr. RICE. So is it more than 80 percent of motor carriers surveyed had experienced productivity loss since the new rules went 

into effect, 67 percent of drivers report decreases in pay since the 

rules took effect, drivers’ wages for all over-the-road drivers fell by 

a total of 1.6 billion to 3.9 billion in annualized loss? Do these findings concern you at all? 

Ms. FERRO. Yeah, in fact, I was just speaking with the chairman about that. That is correct. And when you separate that data, 

again, as part of ATRI’s work on this issue—they also analyzed 

drivers’ logs and found that the drivers’ logs, the hours they 

worked pre-July 1 and the hours they worked post-July 1 changed 

nary a bit, but a third of 1 percent. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

19 

Mr. RICE. So you are saying that you do not necessarily agree 

with the results of this study? 

Ms. FERRO. Their survey, again, I would describe until I can see 

what the basis of it is, is sort of a vote early, vote often type of survey. I have no idea who actually was contributing that survey information. 

Mr. RICE. All right. Now, this rule, does it apply to short-haul 

drivers? 

Ms. FERRO. The 30-minute break requirement does not. The remainder of the rule certainly does. 

Mr. RICE. Why does it not? 

Ms. FERRO. The 30-minute break requirement? 

Mr. RICE. Yeah. 

Ms. FERRO. Again, the D.C. Circuit Court, as I said, upheld the 

majority of the substance of this rule but did strike down the element of the 30-minute break requirement on the short-haul industry. 

Mr. RICE. Okay. So the court found that this rule was over-expansive at least in that respect? 

Ms. FERRO. That is correct, on the 30-minute piece. For shorthaul, yes. 

Mr. RICE. And so people like, you know, people driving bread 

trucks in the morning, people driving cement trucks, and these 

people that they are in and out of their truck all day long, it is not 

like they have got driving fatigue; right? 

Ms. FERRO. And that would appear to be the nature certainly 

of why we have special conditions for short-haul to begin with, in 

that 100–150 mile radius as well as the court’s decision on the 30- 

minute break. 

Mr. RICE. So you are saying these overnight rules do not apply 

to the short-haul drivers? 

Ms. FERRO. No, the 30-minute break is the only piece that the 

court struck down. The remainder of the rule absolutely does apply. 

Mr. RICE. The overnight rules do apply to short-haul drivers. 

Ms. FERRO. Absolutely. And again, they generally do not need 

them because they do not work beyond a 60-hour week. 

Mr. RICE. Then why do they apply to them at all? I mean, it is 

ridiculous in my mind. These people are not suffering from driving 

fatigue. They are in and out of their trucks all day long. These people driving concrete trucks, they cannot drive very far. The concrete will get hard. Asphalt drivers, they cannot drive very far. And 

then when they get to where they are going they sit and wait till 

they can dump their load and then they drive for 30 minutes more. 

The idea that this rule would apply to them is just absurd. This 

idea from the federal bureaucracy that you are going to throw a 

wet blanket over everybody and wait till a lawsuit comes and tells 

you who it can apply to is just absolutely absurd. And particularly 

with a half-baked thing. The study is not even complete. And you 

cannot even tell if you are right whether or not it is going to have 

any effect because the result is so small in terms of the benefit but 

the cost is so great. 

Ms. FERRO. Yes. And it is interesting you say that. The hoursof-service rule that applies to the short-haul industry is virtually 

identical to the rule that has been in place since 2003. And again, 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

20 

because those operators very rarely exceed 60 hours a week, and 

they already under the short-haul conditions have the ability to extend the workday, that driving window to 16 hours from the normal 14 during certain times of the week or a couple times a week, 

they already operate under conditions that have not changed under 

this rule. 

Again, hours of service for the trucking industry is the purview 

of the Secretary of Transportation. It is not subject to the Fair 

Labor Standards Act. So anybody that is operating a commercial 

vehicle that comes under the oversight of the DOT is going to be 

subject to some sort of an hours-of-service requirement, and that 

set of requirements on short-haul operators is virtually unchanged. 

Mr. RICE. Well, I think that what we have got here is we had 

a rule in place that had reduced traffic deaths, fatalities, accidents 

by truckers by 29 percent I think is what Ms. Meng said and that 

we have done a study with 27 graduate students in Washington 

and determined that maybe possibly we might be able to save 18 

people. We are not going to know because the sample is so small. 

And we are willing to impose the Federal government on all these 

small businesses across the country and have them incur this loss 

where we have got 60 percent of drivers report pay decreases, 80 

percent of motor carriers providing productivity loss and we have 

not even finished the study. I do think it is arrogance. I absolutely 

think it is arrogance. I think we need to rethink. We need to reset. 

We need to at least finish our study and figure out if we are basing 

this on the right conclusions. 

So I thank you for appearing today. I hope you will reconsider. 

Thank you. 

Ms. FERRO. Thank you. 

Chairman HANNA. Mr. Tipton. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think I would like to follow up on a couple of the comments 

that you had made, Administrator. In your response to the Chairman you said that you were sensitized to the industry concerns. 

Ms. FERRO. Absolutely. 

Mr. TIPTON. And Mr. Rice was just noting 80 percent of the 

motor carriers surveyed experienced productivity loss. A majority of 

drivers, 67 percent report decreases in pay since the rule took effect. And I think it is important to note these are not oftentimes 

big businesses. The big company owner is the guy driving the truck 

or the woman driving the truck, so you are sensitized to that. Do 

you understand the frustration of ‘‘one size fits all’’ being thrown 

over an industry? 

Ms. FERRO. Absolutely. I think that has been a frustration that 

has prevailed for the hours-of-service rules for many, many years. 

It absolutely predates this rule. It is the—— 

Mr. TIPTON. So we are adding another rule that is ‘‘one size fits 

all’’? 

Ms. FERRO. No, no, no. The same rule is virtually intact. It is 

the 14-hour driving window and 11-hour drive time. It provides for 

a restart for those that need to reset their clock, and the vast majority do not. 

The survey in question I think surveyed about 3,000 drivers. 

Again, we do not know who they were or the integrity behind that 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

21 

process. I am happy to provide our analysis of that survey for the 

record. But again—— 

Mr. TIPTON. You mentioned 3,000. 

Ms. FERRO. Yeah. 

Mr. TIPTON. I am just curious, how many drivers are there in 

the country? 

Ms. FERRO. Roughly three million affected by this rule. 

Mr. TIPTON. Three million. 

Ms. FERRO. But more than that certainly operating on intrastate operations or smaller vehicle operations that are not keeping 

records of duty. 

Mr. TIPTON. Right. And just for my clarification, of these 3,000, 

was this nationwide in the sample survey? 

Ms. FERRO. I do not know. I think whoever is responsible for 

that survey, it was an industry survey, could be able to answer 

that I hope. 

Mr. TIPTON. Okay. And I think this begs back to the Chairman’s point, that we are implementing a rule. It is not completed. 

We do not know if it was broad-reaching in terms of different regions by your own admission right now, but we are forging ahead 

with a rule that is going to impact real lives, real businesses, and 

could have some very dramatic effects. 

I appreciate your being here. I understand, and we all, again, 

share the compassion of wanting to make sure that we are safe. I 

happen to know some of the guys driving the trucks. They want to 

be safe, too. 

Ms. FERRO. Yeah, they do. 

Mr. TIPTON. But they want to earn a living, too. And they are 

seeing the Federal government stepping in with a broad-based ‘‘one 

size fits all’’ across the nation policy on an incomplete study with 

a small sample size that can really impact them. And I hope you 

can understand that frustration that is there. 

Mr. Chairman, if I may, I think this speaks broadly to a bill that 

we passed through the House of Representatives called the Rains 

Act to where we can actually get Congress involved back into the 

rulemaking process because I have to tell you, as a member of Congress, it came from the state of Colorado, we have sunset legislation where we can review rulemaking, and to be able to actually 

bring in those real-life stories and those real-life impact. I think 

this Rains Act is something I would encourage the United States 

Senate to take up because as well-intentioned as you are, I think 

there are some real impacts that are not really being taken into 

consideration here. When I was in business, before we made a decision, we had the final product to be able to make the best decision. 

Ms. FERRO. Well, look, the safety of the American people is 

something we take into consideration utmost. That is why this 

agency was created. Safety of the industry, health of the driver, ultimately safety of the American people. The number of fatalities, 

even taking your earlier example of what if it is something closer 

to 25 percent or 30 percent that are caused by the truck driver, you 

are talking two to three 747s. Two to three 747s crashing every 

year. You would not tolerate it. The American people would not tolerate it. We continue to press forward with balanced rulemaking, 

research-driven, data-based. The study you asked me about in 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

22 

terms of its nationwide impact is an ATRI study. That is not a 

FMCSA study. The numbers you quote were something that was 

just released this week. The data and research behind this rule 

were fully vetted, fully peer reviewed, fully available to stakeholders to comment on. This has been a more transparent process 

than ever before. This is a rule that has been upheld by the court. 

We now have certainty in the hours of service, which we have not 

had since the ICC Termination Act directed the agency to revisit 

truck drivers’ hours-of-service rule because of fatigue and its impact on crash likelihood and safety. 

Chairman HANNA. Sure. And Congress has still asked to have 

a study completed for—— 

Ms. FERRO. And we will complete it. 

Chairman HANNA. Well, I do not know. The intent is clearly 

that the study be completed before the rule is enacted. 

And I would like to note for the record that the agency, unless 

I am mistaken, has not made your methodology of its economic 

analysis public. 

Ms. FERRO. Oh, well—— 

Chairman HANNA. Is that out there? 

Ms. FERRO. Absolutely it is out there. 

Chairman HANNA. All right. 

Ms. FERRO. Yep. I have got a full docket with lots of explanation. 

Chairman HANNA. Can you send that along then? 

Ms. FERRO. I will be pleased to send that along. 

Chairman HANNA. Thank you. 

I want to thank you for being here today. 

Ms. FERRO. Yes, sir. 

Chairman HANNA. And members of Congress may have additional questions, so if you do, I just ask that you submit them in 

writing. 

As you can tell by the TV, we have votes so we are going to adjourn to go to the floor. I would guess that we will be back here 

by noon. And I invite you to stay if you like. 

Ms. FERRO. Thank you. 

Chairman HANNA. If you feel so inclined, and hear from the industry themselves and get the counterpoint. But I also understand 

that you may have to go. 

Ms. FERRO. Thank you, Mr. Ch airman. 

Chairman HANNA. Thank you. We will see you around noon. 

[Recess] 

Chairman HANNA. Ms. Meng is coming back, so hopefully she 

will be here shortly, but I am going to in the interest of time just 

proceed. 

Thank you all for appearing today. I would like now to introduce 

the first witness of the second panel, Mr. Duane Long. Mr. Long 

is chairman of Longistics, a small business, freight-hauling operation located in Raleigh, North Carolina. Mr. Long started his business with one truck in 1984. Since then he has built his business 

into 45 truck operations employing over 105 people. He is testifying 

on behalf of the American Trucking Association. 

Mr. Long, thank you, and thank your wife for being here today. 

You may proceed, sir. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

23 

STATEMENTS OF DUANE LONG, CHAIRMAN, LONGISTICS, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATION; TILDEN CURL, JR., TECCO TRUCKING, TESTIFYING 

ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER–OPERATOR INDEPENDENT 

DRIVERS ASSOCIATION; BRIAN EVANS, PRESIDENT–OWNER, 

L&L FREIGHT SERVICES, INC., TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF 

THE TRUCKING INTERMEDIARIES ASSOCIATION; PAUL P. 

JOVANIS, PROFESSOR, CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING; DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS PROGRAM, LARSON TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE, THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY 

STATEMENT OF DUANE LONG 

Mr. LONG. Chairman Hanna, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity. 

ATA is the largest trade association for the trucking industry. 

Through its affiliated associations, the ATA Federation represents 

more than 30,000 members covering every type of carrier. 

I am Duane Long, chairman of Longistics, a trucking and logistics company in North Carolina that my wife and I started in 1984. 

We operate on average 45 trucks and employ an average of 105 

drivers who provide service for pharmaceutical customers throughout the United States. We take pride in our outstanding safety performance. 

Mr. Chairman and Representative Rice, thank you for introducing H.R. 3413. ATA full supports the bill. Simply put, the 

hours-of-service changes were unnecessary. FMCSA’s action, while 

perhaps well intentioned, was not based on evidence or analyses 

demonstrating a problem with the prior set of rules. These new 

rules are having real-world impacts on thousands of small trucking 

companies and the million-plus drivers that work for them. Keep 

in mind, 97 percent of trucking companies are small business with 

20 trucks or less. 

This past Monday, the 18th, the American Transportation Research Institute issued a new report on the impacts of these rules 

based on two separate surveys conducted in September and October. The first collected data from more than 2,300 professional 

truck drivers, and the second survey yielded responses from more 

than 400 truck fleets, 70 percent of which were small fleets. ATRI 

also analyzed electronic logbook data from more than 40,000 drivers over a 93-day period after July 1. 

ATRI’s findings are groundbreaking, and remarkably timely for 

this hearing. ATRI found that 67.4 percent of surveyed drivers reported a drop in their income since July 1st. The aggregate annual 

loss is between $1.6 billion and $3.9 billion spread across a millionplus over-the-road truck drivers; 82–1/2 percent of drivers indicated 

a somewhat negative or very negative impact on their quality of 

life. Ironically, 66 percent perceived increases in fatigue since these 

rules went into effect. More than 80 percent of fleets surveyed indicated a loss of productivity, and counter to FMCSA’s claims, electronic logbook data does not support the agency’s claims of drivers 

consistently working excessive hours. I can confirm these findings. 

My drivers work reasonable hours yet they have lost productivity. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

24 

Bottom line, these rules are having a widespread negative impact 

on productivity for drivers and fleets. 

A few specifics about my company. We employ team drivers, typically husbands and wives, who take turns driving the truck and 

one resting in the truck’s sleeper berth. Their weekly routine often 

keeps them on the road until around 2 AM early Saturday morning. Under the previous restart rule, they could depart on their 

next trip Sunday evening after being off more than a day and a 

half in order to make a Monday morning delivery required by our 

customers. Now, when taking the restart, they cannot depart until 

after 5 AM on Monday and are unable to meet the customer’s expectations and the demands of just in time delivery. Other small 

fleets have shared similar concerns with ATA. Because restarts 

must now include this 1 AM to 5 AM period, many trucks are entering the traffic flow at about the same time just as rush hour begins. A regional food transporter based in Minnesota that ATA has 

heard from experienced a loss in productivity per truck of between 

4 and 6 percent. Their drivers are frustrated and so are the customers as late deliveries have doubled over the past three months. 

ATA has heard similar problems and concerns from many companies, both small and large. More importantly, ATRI has documented the widespread nature of these problems and their huge 

cost. More troubling is these new rules are not likely to result in 

any kind of meaningful benefit. Not surprisingly, FMCSA has announced no plans to collect data in an effort to determine if the 

benefits are possible. We did not hear any plans to that effect 

today. We encourage Congress to pass H.R. 3413 to stay the restart 

provision until GAO completes an assessment of FMCSA’s cost-benefit work and its restart field study. 

This is not just a trucking issue. The rule changes are having 

negative impacts throughout the supply chain and explains why 

the National Association of Manufacturers, National Federal of 

Small Businesses, and more than 50 other organizations are supporting H.R. 3413. 

Again, thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward to any 

questions. 

Chairman HANNA. Thank you. 

Our next witness is Mr. Tilden Curl. Mr. Curl is a single-unit 

owner-operator from Olympia, Washington. He has more than 20 

years of experience in the industry. In addition, Mr. Curl was recently recognized as the 28th annual Good Year Highway Hero. He 

received this distinction for risking his own life to save a motorist 

whose disabled vehicle was almost hit by a train. He is testifying 

today on behalf of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association. 

Mr. Curl, thank you for being here. And I want to tell you, I am 

a 35-year member of the Operating Engineers. So we share a similar history. 

Mr. CURL. We do. Thank you very much. 

Chairman HANNA. You may begin, sir. 

STATEMENT OF TILDEN CURL 

Mr. CURL. Good morning. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

25 

My name is Tilden Curl. I am from Olympia, Washington, and 

I have been a professional driver for over 20 years. I currently operate throughout seven western states and appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Owner-Operator Independent 

Drivers Association. OOIDA represents the small business truckers 

that are the majority of the U.S. trucking industry. More than 90 

percent of carriers own 20 trucks or less. Half of all trucking companies are one-truck operations. 

Small business truckers are committed to highway safety. For us, 

accidents have an adverse impact on our businesses and our livelihoods. OOIDA’s average member has a quarter century of experience and more than two million miles of accident-free driving. 

I want to thank Administrator Ferro, who recently saw our commitment to safety and some of the challenges truckers face every 

day as she joined an OOIDA board member on a two-day ride-along 

from D.C. to St. Louis. As professional drivers, we need flexibility 

to balance countless demands. Loss of flexibility has an economic 

impact for small business truckers and over time changes to the 

Hours-of-Service regulations have reduced that flexibility. Less 

flexibility makes it more difficult to stop for rest, avoid traffic, and 

keep a schedule after being delayed by a shipper or receiver. 

The recent Hours-of-Service rulemaking, which was the result of 

a court settlement, was an opportunity to help truckers balance 

these countless demands. Unfortunately, the changes went in the 

opposite direction, adding new restrictions to the 34-hour restart, 

requiring an arbitrary 30-minute break, and retaining the 

unstoppable 14-hour duty clock. The impacts of these changes are 

borne out in a recent survey of OOIDA’s membership. While only 

3 percent said they felt less fatigued, 46 percent of respondents felt 

more fatigued after the changes; 79 percent have seen impacts in 

their ability to use the restart; 65 percent responded that they have 

lost some income, and more than half experienced reduced loads 

and mileage. My own experience has mirrored these responses, especially with the two 1 AM to 5 AM periods during the restart. 

This often puts me in the middle of Seattle’s rush hour and much 

like D.C.’s beltway traffic, this means more time on the road at a 

greater risk of accidents. 

For these reasons, OOIDA supports H.R. 3413, Mr. Hanna and 

Mr. Rice’s legislation that will ensure a full examination of the 34- 

hour restart restrictions. As it is now, the restart restrictions could 

reduce my potential workweek by as much as one day, possibly 

costing me as much as $4,000 to $5,000 a month. While some 

would argue technology is the safety solution, OOIDA’s members 

see this as a false premise and a way to ignore larger issues. This 

rings true when accident data shows that carriers who depend on 

technologies, such as onboard recorders and speed limiters crash 

twice as frequently as carriers who use experienced and safe 

owner-operators. 

With this in mind, what should be done? FMCSA itself can act 

by returning flexibility to the hours of service, including allowing 

truckers to pause the duty clock with rest breaks. Trucking, government, and most importantly shippers and receivers, must address the detention issue. Professional truckers, will still considered unskilled labor, deserve to have their time fully, fairly comSBREP-219 with DISTILLER

26 

pensated. We must stop placing more rigid requirements on the 

driver while allowing carriers and customers to make demands beyond the allowances of regulations and safety. FMCSA must act on 

an entry-level driver training and driver trainer requirements as 

the foundation of a healthy safety program. Advancing this policy 

first called for by Congress in 1991 is OOIDA’s top safety priority. 

Our comprehensive driver training proposal forms the keystone of 

our truckers for safety agenda. You can learn more about this at 

truckersforsafety.com. 

In closing, bringing our complete supply chain in as partners to 

address the regulatory responsibilities of truckers is the right direction to take. Further, FMCSA should prioritize providing additional flexibility while addressing core needs, like entry-level driver 

training. The wrong direction is to rely on further restrictions and 

unproven technology. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and for holding today’s 

hearing. 

Chairman HANNA. Thank you, Mr. Curl. 

Our next witness is Mr. Brian Evans. Mr. Evans is president and 

CEO of L&L Freight Services, a 12-employee transportation brokerage located in Cabot, Kansas—Arkansas. Prior to joining the 

freight brokerage business, Mr. Cabot (sic) was an over-the-road 

trucker. He is testifying today on behalf of the Transportation 

Intermediaries Association. 

Mr. Evans, you may deliver your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF BRIAN EVANS 

Mr. EVANS. Thank you, sir. Chairman Hanna, Ranking Member 

Meng, members of the House Small Business Committee, thank 

you for this opportunity to speak with you today regarding concerns affecting small businesses arising from the FMCSA Hours-ofService rules. 

As mentioned, my name is Brian Evans. I am the owner of a 

small transportation brokerage company. I serve as the president 

and CEO of L&L Freight Services out of Cabot, Arkansas. I am a 

20-year veteran of the transportation, freight brokerage, and supply chain management sector. I do come from a family-owned, bluecollar, small business. Prior to working in the brokerage industry, 

I drove over-the-road for almost one million accident-free miles. Additionally, I currently serve on the TIA Board of Directors. TIA represents 1,400 member companies, 70 percent of which are small 

family-owned businesses. Like the FMCSA, one of our primary missions is promoting safe practices. As an organization, we seek to 

work with FMCSA to make the Hours-of-Service regulations the 

best possible tool to improve safety for the motoring public by reducing truck driver fatigue. 

Unfortunately, the new Hours-of-Service regulations were a solution in search of a problem. No one wants unsafe trucks or drivers 

on the road. To that end, we have a standing committee that has 

published and regularly updates a carrier selection framework. The 

TIA recommends that every broker and every shipper have in place 

a written carrier selection policy for hiring carriers. Safety improvements by the industry under the previous Hours-of-Service 

rules reduced accidents. It allowed the market to become more effiSBREP-219 with DISTILLER

27 

cient and allowed American business to be more competitive. The 

new rules, however, are overly complicated, will reduce productivity, and have no effect on reducing accidents beyond the previous 

level. 

In the 24th annual State of Logistics report authored by Rosalyn 

Wilson, she estimates that a loss of productivity close to 6 percent 

for the transportation industry. This is a significant amount in loss 

of productivity that could lead companies to expand their nearshoring ventures into neighboring countries, thus relegating valued 

American transportation jobs to foreign nations. 

I have spoken with many of my carrier customers who are experiencing a major loss of productivity due to the new restart provision. This rule is resulting in around five fewer loads per week or 

a reduction of 3 percent in capacity for their fleets. The cost of this 

loss of efficiency is felt by the business and ultimately will be 

passed on to each of us, the consumer. We are not suggesting that 

increased safety be traded for increased efficiency. We are stating 

that safety improvement was achieved under the old rules and that 

the new rules will not result in dramatically increased carrier safety. 

As you know, there is a pressing shortage of drivers across America. The new Hours-of-Service rules will have a twofold effect. 

First, it will chase out qualified drivers and deter future motor carriers from entering the industry because the rules limit the number 

of loads that a carrier can handle each week. The rule will also 

likely require drivers to operate during peak hours of operations, 

thereby increasing congestion, and as a result, reducing safety. 

The American Transportation Research Institute recently released their 2013 edition, Critical Issues in the Trucking Industry. 

The report places the new Hours-of-Service regulations as this 

year’s top concern for the transportation industry. ATRI estimates 

that the changes to the restart provision alone would cost the industry $189 million as opposed to the $133 million benefit that is 

projected by the FMCSA. 

The FMCSA’s concerns about driver health and safety are to be 

applauded. The TIA supports the passage of H.R. 3413, the TRUE 

Safety Act. TIA urges the agency to examine the negative effects 

of the 34-hour restart provision and to consider amending the rule 

to give transportation the flexibility that they need to ensure safety. 

I appreciate very much this opportunity to testify before the subcommittee today on the concerns of the new HOS rules and the effects that it has on businesses like mine, whether a third-party logistics provider, a motor carrier, or the entire supply chain. I will 

be happy to answer any questions. 

Chairman HANNA. Thank you, Mr. Evans. 

Ranking Member Meng will be introducing our next witness. 

Ms. MENG. Dr. Paul Jovanis is a professor of Civil Engineering 

at Penn State University and has over 34 years of experience in 

highway safety and traffic engineering. At Penn State, he is also 

the director of the Transportation Operations Program at the 

Larson Transportation Institute. He has extensive expertise in the 

area of driver fatigue and motor carrier safety and has published 

frequently on these subjects. Prior to coming to Penn State in 1997, 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

28 

he was a professor and associate director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California Davis. Thank you 

for being here. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL P. JOVANIS 

Mr. JOVANIS. Chairman Hanna, Ranking Member Meng, and 

Committee members, thank you for the privilege of sharing and 

participating in this hearing. 

Understanding the relationship between truck driving hours of 

service and crashes is a complex and challenging task. Researchers 

working in this area come from backgrounds as diverse as human 

factors, psychology, medicine, and road safety. Some of the research 

in this field has been described by the term ‘‘fatigue’’ even though 

questions have been raised in the literature about the definition of 

the term ‘‘fatigue’’ itself. Others have focused on studying the association of crashes to the duration of driving, rest breaks, scheduling 

of driving over several days, and time of day. All of these approaches contribute in different ways to our accumulation of knowledge about hours of service and crashes. This testimony is not an 

exhaustive review of this literature as there would likely be hundreds of citations; rather, this is an attempt to summarize the most 

recent work in the field with a few additional references to wellcited research. 

Concerning the effect of hours of service on crashes, I offer the 

following summary. 

Hours of continuous driving. Using data supplied by carriers over 

a period of more than 20 years, there have been a number of studies that support the basic principle that the longer one drives, the 

greater the odds of a crash. And you see the references in the testimony. These eight studies estimated the effect of driving time, importantly, when controlling for other factors such as experience, offduty time, driving pattern over multiple days, and in one case, 

time of day directly. These studies are among the few that control 

for multiple factors while seeking to estimate the effect of driving 

time. A study using fatal truck involved crashes from 1980 to 2002 

also indicated an increase in crash risk with hours driving. 

Using trucks instrumented with cameras and other vehicle-based 

sensors, a series of studies have been conducted to connect risky 

driving maneuvers to hours of service. Using these measures, one 

study found little connection between the observed events and 

hours driving. A second study with more extensive data did find an 

association of driving time with the occurrence of safety-critical 

events, including a few crashes. This second study, like the first, 

also showed a close correlation with time on duty. Other studies 

using regular work conditions have found little association of these 

metrics with hours driving. 

In summary, based on a series of studies using carrier-supplied 

data and one with fatal truck crashes measured over 20 years, I 

believe there is evidence that crash risk increases as driving time 

increases. Concerning hours off duty, the increase in required offduty time was implemented in 2003. Crash-based research using 

data from the 1980s indicates that drivers with more than nine 

hours off duty had a lower crash risk when returning to work than 

drivers with eight to nine hours off duty. This is a case where the 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

29 

change in regulations, increasing off duty time from eight to 10 

hours, is consistent with the research. 

Concerning time of day. The effects of time of day are particularly difficult to identify because trucks share the road with other 

traffic which has marked peaks in urban areas during the morning 

and evening rush. In a study using crash data with a baseline of 

10 AM to noon, crashes were elevated in the early morning, 4 AM 

to 6 AM through about 10 AM, and then again from 4 PM to 10 

PM. Another study found an increase in the odds of a crash from 

11 PM through 6 AM. Using fatigue tests and instrumented vehicle 

data, others found strong association of declines in performance 

and fatigue tests linked to time of day. Fatigue, self rated by the 

drivers, increased more during night than day shifts in a study in 

Australia. So time of day is associated with crash risk. The question is how to best address this in regulations. 

Rest breaks. Breaks are included in the Hours-of-Service rules 

for the European Union, which require 45 minutes for each four 

and a half hours of driving. In 2013, the new U.S. rule required 

a 30-minute rest break before eight hours of driving. Lack of mandatory inclusion in this policy allowed researchers to compare drivers with the break and those without. The presence of two breaks 

reduced crash odds by 30 percent in a 2011 study. Safety benefits 

of rest breaks seem overwhelming. 

Cumulative driving over several days. The introduction of the 34- 

hour restart in 2003 has triggered a series of studies of the effect 

of cumulative driving both with and without a restart. Two laboratory studies have been recently completed that focus on the 34-hour 

restart. In the first, subjects were split into two groups, one working a daytime schedule for five days, off duty for 34 hours, then 

working five more 14-hour days. The second group had a similar 

schedule except the participants worked at night for five days, had 

a 34-hour day-oriented break, and then another five days of night 

work. The principal finding is that the day-oriented work group 

showed no decline in performance, while those with the night work 

showed a decline when they returned to work after the 34-hour restart. These studies were enhanced in a follow-up experiment in 

which participants were subjected to night work periods separated 

by a 58-hour restart aimed at emulating the effect of an additional 

day on top of the 34-hour regulation. In this case, drivers were 

compared against each other before and after the restart. The 

longer restart resulted in no performance degradation after return 

from a 58-hour off-duty period. 

This concludes my oral testimony. I am happy to answer any 

questions that you may have. Thank you. 

Chairman HANNA. Thank you. 

Ranking Member Meng. 

Ms. MENG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the courtesy. 

Question for Dr. Jovanis. The new HOS rule does not restore the 

allowable driving time to 10 hours. What is the effect of an extra 

driving time on driver fatigue and truck accident rates? 

Mr. JOVANIS. Well, I guess I could answer most directly by saying all the evidence that we have and all the work that we have 

done for over 20 years are that increasing from 10 to 11 hours increases the likelihood of crashes. The curve goes up. We do not do 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

30 

work with the word ‘‘fatigue’’ so I will just answer the question in 

terms of crashes. 

Increasing from nine to 10—changing from nine hours to 10 

hours increases the risk; going from 10 hours to 11 hours increase 

the risk of a crash. 

Ms. MENG. And question for Mr. Curl. 

FMCSA claimed that truck drivers’ health will benefit substantially from the new rule. They asserted that more time off results 

in more sleep. What is your view of this assessment? Does more 

time off necessarily mean more sleep for drivers? 

Mr. CURL. No, it really does not. To address the issue of fatigue 

you need to take rest or take sleep at times when your body is 

ready for it. You cannot legislate sleep or rest from anything other 

than the cab of a truck. 

I would like to weigh in a little bit on your recent question regarding fatigue and the difference in the hours of driving. I believe 

there was an ATRI study that was done once that showed the 

greatest risk was actually in the first hour of driving rather than 

in the last hour of driving, which almost mirrored the danger in 

the 11th hour was almost as high but not quite as high as the first 

hour. So, also fatigue or asleep truck drivers were a factor in 1.8 

percent of all truck-involved fatality accidents, 64 accidents total in 

2011. 

Ms. MENG. Thank you. Same to Mr. Curl, as a small business 

owner, most trucking firms are small businesses. As a small business owner, how easy would it be to hire additional drivers and buy 

new trucks to make up for lost productivity caused by the Hoursof-Service rule? 

Mr. CURL. Hiring more trucks is not going to be the solution because each and every truck has to be profitable of itself, in and of 

itself. So, you know, hiring another truck to make up for it is, I 

do not know, it is like—it is not going to address the real underlying issue. The real issue. And actually, Hours-of-Service does 

have a huge impact on what we do. But it is one of several issues 

that we face in the industry. Truthfully, detention time has a 

greater impact on what we do than the hours of service. 

Ms. MENG. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman HANNA. Mr. Rice. 

Mr. RICE. Mr. Jovanis, do you think that the proposed rule will 

have a meaningful impact on accidents and injuries? Yes or no? 

Mr. JOVANIS. I do not know. I do not know because I have not 

studied—— 

Mr. RICE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Evans, do you think it will? 

Mr. EVANS. No, sir, I do not. 

Mr. RICE. Mr. Curl? 

Mr. CURL. No. 

Mr. RICE. Mr. Long? 

Mr. LONG. No, sir. I do not. 

Mr. RICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Curl, you hit on something that I think is important. You 

said that drivers need flexibility, and it appears to me that the federal bureaucratic framework, not just related to truckers or transportation or anything else, the problem with it is that we try to 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

31 

write these rules that apply to everybody and you cannot do it in 

a logical way that it does apply to everybody. When you say flexibility, I mean, if you get held up by a supplier and you have to 

have your load to a certain place and you were planning on driving 

the next day but you know now you are going to be thrown to the 

day after and you have got a restart in the middle, it might force 

you to drive when you are tired; correct? 

Mr. CURL. Absolutely. 

Mr. RICE. So actually, these rules could force you into a situation that you would normally thin was unsafe; correct? 

Mr. CURL. That is correct. 

Mr. RICE. Can you be more descriptive of a situation like that 

than I could, because I am not a driver. Can you help me with 

that? 

Mr. CURL. Well, I can. But you have to understand that in the 

trucking industry we are such a diverse industry that of all the 

types of operations that we have, several of them are alike maybe 

but the majority of them are individual by nature. So flexibility 

comes in addressing the issues of each particular operation, you 

know, and in my particular operation, if I could leave my house at 

say four in the morning and get through Seattle before the rush 

hour traffic hits, it would be great. But that violates my 1 AM to 

5 AM periods that is required for the 34-hour restart. I mean, that 

is one example of flexibility. 

Mr. RICE. Mr. Long, do you think that these rules could force 

truck drivers to drive in a fatigued situation when they otherwise 

would not? 

Mr. LONG. I would hope not but Mr. Curl gave an example 

where I think it could possibly happen. We would not do that at 

my company. We would make sure our drivers were always safe. 

But that could happen given the example that Mr. Curl gave. 

Mr. RICE. Mr. Jovanis, you mentioned a number of studies that 

seemed to have differing conclusions. On one hand you said hours 

of driving did not have a meaningful impact on—what did you say? 

You said longer drive times did not necessarily increase—give a 

greater chance of accidents. Is that not what you said? 

Mr. JOVANIS. I do not think so. 

Mr. RICE. Okay. 

Mr. JOVANIS. But let me try to clarify. 

Mr. RICE. All right. 

Mr. JOVANIS. One of the complicating factors in this area is 

that different studies have had different findings. So the studies 

done sponsored by FMCSA in 2003 and 2004 by Virginia Tech did 

not find an association of driving time with what they called safety 

critical events. 

Mr. RICE. That is almost unbelievable to me. So they are saying 

you could drive for 48 hours straight and not have a higher chance 

of an accident? 

Mr. JOVANIS. Well, given the data that they collected over say 

a 14-hour period of work, they saw no difference from the first hour 

to the 14th hour. It was uniform in terms of the rate at which bad 

driving or errors were occurring. 

Mr. RICE. You also said that the chances of an accident increase 

in the morning and in the evening. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

32 

Mr. JOVANIS. Right. 

Mr. RICE. And I presume you are talking about rush-hour 

times? 

Mr. JOVANIS. Right. Right. 

Mr. RICE. Okay. Do you know if the study that has been done 

by the—whatever the acronym is, FMCSA or whatever it is—takes 

into account—I know they are aimed at fatigue and they think that 

by keeping people off the road from 1 AM to 5 AM lowers fatigue 

and that lowers the chance of an accident. Do you know if it takes 

into account the increased risk that you are talking about of forcing 

drivers to drive in that rush hour time? 

Mr. JOVANIS. Well, they funded some of my work, so the more 

recent report that you have in the testimony from 2011 is funded 

by FMCSA and we use crash data. FMCSA chooses a number of 

different sort of scientific mechanisms to do these things. 

Mr. RICE. You do not know whether it takes that into account 

or not? 

Mr. JOVANIS. My studies did. I do not know the extent to which 

the other studies did. 

Mr. RICE. So you did a study that analyzed fatigue and determined that people were less fatigued if they had these two periods 

of time in the early morning—what did I say, 1 AM to 5 AM. Is 

that not the time that they are requiring to have off? That they are 

less fatigued if they do that rather than under the current rule. Is 

that right? 

Mr. JOVANIS. I would not use the word ‘‘fatigue.’’ The reference 

that I gave in the testimony was that if they are driving in the 

early morning hours, from say 4 AM to about 10 AM, then they 

have a higher risk of a crash. 

Mr. RICE. But under the rule as proposed, are we not forcing 

drivers into those hours? Yes, clearly we are. Yes, we are. 

Mr. JOVANIS. Let me say this. What has surprised me about 

this particular set of rules is it is the first time that the agency has 

specified particular times of day when people have to be off duty. 

If you look at the regulations prior to that, we talked about flexibility on the panel. They have never specified a particular time of 

day when you had to be off duty. This is the first time that they 

have done that. 

Mr. RICE. But under this current rule, under the proposed rule 

or whatever—it is in effect already—they are off the road from 1 

AM to 5 AM; right? 

Mr. JOVANIS. If they want to use the restart, they have to be 

off the road for two consecutive days. 

Mr. RICE. Which increase the likelihood that they are going to 

be on the road from 5 AM to whenever; correct? 

Mr. JOVANIS. Well, I would presume that but I do not know 

that in fact. 

Mr. RICE. And you are saying that your studies show that from 

5 AM to 10 AM there is an increased chance of accidents; correct? 

Mr. JOVANIS. That is right. 

Mr. RICE. So we are forcing them into a time when they are 

more prone to accidents? 

Mr. JOVANIS. Well, like I said, I do not know that for a fact, 

so I would be uncomfortable saying that as directly as you. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

33 

Mr. RICE. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman HANNA. Let me say it directly then. 

What we heard—Doctor, I really appreciate—I read your testimony in advance. I appreciate the openness with which you presented it here today and the way it is written. 

What we know though is that the study, the proposed study and 

the process that they went through for the rulemaking did not include, and we heard Administrator Ferro say, did not include the 

consideration of those early morning hours which we know people 

are forced to work in when traffic is more. So let me just ask you 

this because it is going to be abstract and we do not have a study 

about this. We should have but we do not. What is your best guess 

that telling people—I mean, you can be direct—we are just trying 

to get to the bottom of this. What is your best guess happens when 

you do not study the effects or something but yet you tell people 

when to go to bed and when not to go to bed. And we know that 

it pushes them into hours that are much busier, makes them perhaps even drive longer because of the congestion. I will just ask it 

this way. Do you think that should have been part of the study? 

And if so, do you think that would change the results of the study? 

Mr. JOVANIS. I think it would have been a very good idea if 

they had looked at that very explicitly. And as near as I can tell, 

they have not prior to the study that is in activity right now. 

Chairman HANNA. Well, as near as we have heard they have 

not. 

Mr. JOVANIS. Right. And yet have no intention of doing that. 

Chairman HANNA. So, and I do not want to put words in your 

mouth. I will do this on my own. So if I were to suggest to you that 

had they included that, they may have come up with actually causing more accidents, more deaths, more fatigue, more stress to the 

overall system. I mean that is kind of what it feels like to me, especially being a guy who has spent thousands of hours on heavily 

equipment. 

Mr. JOVANIS. It is certainly possible. And then whenever you 

get into a situation like you are in with the extended hours of driving out to 10 hours or 11 hours, you are left with an assessment 

that says is the benefit of doing something greater than the cost? 

And presumably, when they did the benefit assessment on increasing from 10 to 11 hours, they assessed in their regulatory impact 

assessment that there was a benefit from doing that. Presumably, 

they would have a similar kind of a benefit assessment. But please 

do not ask me about that because I do not do benefit assessments. 

Chairman HANNA. No, but I mean, the conclusion is that we do 

not know the truth because we have not—the study not only is not 

complete but it is not even inclusive enough to come up with a result that is based on science in your industry or in your field. 

Mr. JOVANIS. Yeah. I do not know of any study that has looked 

at that particular restart configuration. 

Chairman HANNA. but you would agree that that should potentially be part of it? 

Mr. JOVANIS. Yes. 

Chairman HANNA. I throw the word ‘‘potentially’’ out there just 

to make it be a little easier for you to say. 

Mr. JOVANIS. Yes. Yes. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

34 

Chairman HANNA. Thank you very much. 

We are taking up other people’s time, but sure, Mr. Rice, I am 

happy to—— 

Mr. RICE. I figure you guys came all the way here. You do not 

mind five more minutes, do you? 

You guys, Mr. Evans, Mr. Curl, Mr. Long, do any of you all 

short-haul or are you all long-haul? 

Mr. EVANS. My company does both long and short-haul. 

Mr. CURL. I do limited short haul. 

Mr. RICE. Do you think these driver fatigued regulations are 

really applicable to short haul? I mean, it seems to me that what 

we are aiming at here is somebody that is driving, you know, 10 

hours a day continuously and the effect of the highway driving, do 

you think these are applicable? I am thinking about the guy who 

delivers the beer to the grocery stores or the bread or the guy who 

is driving an asphalt truck or a concrete truck. He is not driving 

for hours on end. They are driving, stopping, waiting, getting out 

of the truck, delivering a load. Do you think these regulations are 

really applicable to those people? 

Mr. EVANS. I do not. 

Mr. CURL. I think to address that directly I would say no, but 

if I could expand on that a little bit more. 

Mr. RICE. Please do, sir. 

Mr. CURL. I think when we are talking about fatigue, we are 

talking about something that I can look up here at this panel and 

I can see fatigue. You know. So how do you—— 

Mr. RICE. Wait a minute. 

Mr. CURL. So it begs the question how do you quantify fatigue? 

Now, I know Mr. Jovanis is involved in a lot of studies that try 

to identify that, but you know, if you stay up and watch the football game one night and then you come back to work the next day, 

you may be somewhat fatigued but it does not mean that you cannot conduct your duties safely and efficiently as necessary. So fatigue is a relative factor. Working short-haul, you know, day-today, sometimes I am more fatigued by it because it is a lot of work. 

But again, you have to go back to giving the drivers themselves the 

control of knowing when they need to rest, you know, given a set 

of hours to work in. But to have a blanket law that covers everybody, it is going to help a few but it is going to hurt a lot more. 

So the hours of service as they are—and we do need hours of service, let me throw that in there—and returning to the old hours of 

service would be an advantage but it is not a solution. 

Mr. RICE. Do you think that the old Hours-of-Service rules were 

effective in reducing injuries and fatalities? 

Mr. CURL. To a degree I do. 

Mr. RICE. I agree with you. I think they were, too. 

Mr. CURL. I believe they needed modification as well. I just happen to believe that the modifications we made were not the right 

ones. 

Mr. RICE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Long, your opinion on this? 

Mr. LONG. Yes. I believe that the older regulations, if you will, 

the 2003, the statistics prove out that they were safe and that we 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

35 

had a big reduction in fatalities. And safety is our number one priority in the trucking industry. 

Now, from the perspective of long-haul versus short-haul, my 

company, we provide mainly the longer haul, more miles. And we 

are, again, we are having the biggest difficulty with our drivers. It 

has to do with their reduction in their productivity, being able to 

go out and make a, for example, a trip from Memphis to Chicago, 

it is about 500 miles. Our customers want the shipment to be delivered at 7 o’clock in the morning, but if the drivers cannot leave 

until 5 o’clock because they came in at a certain time, the example 

that I gave, then that team cannot go out on that run. We may 

have to use another team. So that team loses that day. In fact, we 

have calculated just using the last quarter of our information that 

if this continues on the rest of the year, a lot of our teams are 

going to lose as much as one week’s pay per year, which that is 

a lot of money to our people. For example, about $1,300 where they 

average about 60,000 per year. 

Mr. RICE. How many teams do you have? 

Mr. LONG. About 45. 

Mr. RICE. Okay. So if each one loses a week, that is 45 weeks; 

right? 

Mr. LONG. That is right. 

Mr. RICE. So that means you are going to have to have another 

team. What does that do to the cost of shipping? 

Mr. LONG. It makes it go up. 

Mr. RICE. What does that do to our manufacturers when they 

are shipping stuff around the world? 

Mr. LONG. It will make a cost on the products. 

Mr. RICE. It makes them less competitive, does it not? 

Mr. LONG. Absolutely. 

Mr. RICE. So their stuff costs more around the world. They may 

be laying people off. You might have to hire another team after all. 

That is what I want to get rid of. The whole thing is American 

competitiveness. 

Mr. LONG. We want to be efficient and productive, and we want 

our people to be compensated well. 

Mr. RICE. I agree. 

Mr. LONG. And safe. 

Mr. RICE. Mr. Jovanis, you work on statistics, right, sir? 

Mr. JOVANIS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RICE. Yes, sir. 

The administrator this morning said that this could save as 

many as 19 lives a year, right? That is what she said. 

Mr. JOVANIS. Yes, she did. 

Mr. RICE. Okay. How many people are being killed on the road 

every year by trucks? Or in trucking accidents? 

Mr. JOVANIS. In trucking accidents, on the order of 4,000 fatalities or a little more. 

Mr. RICE. So if we are talking about 19, we are talking about 

less than half a percent. If we put this rule in effect, are we going 

to know that it has had any effect at all? Is there any way to statistically establish whether this rule is going to have any effect at all? 

Mr. JOVANIS. I would say there is and you need to be able to 

fund the research study that uses crash data and determines that 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

36 

the effect of the restart policy in particular either has an effect one 

way or the other. I am not real enthusiastic about using the nationwide statistics on fatalities in truck involvement only because there 

are so many other factors involved that you can never really tell 

on a national scale whether your particular action is really having 

the result that you are observing in fatalities. So certainly, you 

would believe that the downturn in the economy since 2006 has 

had a big impact on reducing travel, and so fatalities and crashes 

are down all over the country in all travel modes. 

Mr. RICE. They were going down before that. 

Mr. JOVANIS. A bit. But we were pretty much stuck on about 

40,000, and we took a big nose dive when the economy went down. 

So there is a study being proposed by the Transportation Research 

Board to answer just this question of why is it that we had such 

a big decline? Can we identify the actions that we took to contribute to that? Because right now a lot of people are claiming credit but I would say we really do not know. 

Mr. RICE. That graphs that I have seen showed truck injuries 

and deaths dramatically dropping beginning around 2000. 

Mr. JOVANIS. I would have to look at the numbers again to be 

sure. 

Mr. RICE. And then they come back up in the last two or three 

years, but they are still down 30 percent. 

Mr. JOVANIS. But—— 

Mr. RICE. My point is statistically, I do not know how in the 

world you are ever going to know whether these things—if we are 

talking about 19, maybe possibly 19 based on an uncompleted 

study of 27 graduate students, how in the world are you going to 

know that costing these people this productivity and affecting 

American competitiveness the way that the trucking industry certainly does, how are we going to know that that is offset by lives 

saved with such a small potential reward? I mean, certainly every 

life is vital and important and precious, but I do not know that we 

are ever going to know that we saved one life. 

Mr. JOVANIS. Well, all I can tell you is on the crash side, in one 

of the reports that is in my testimony, we are able to do a very limited study of the restart provision, and that is because we had only 

a limited amount of two-week data in our study. And in that study 

we showed that drivers had got past the first day of the restart 

pretty well but it was in the second day of the restart that they 

had an increase in crash risk. Now, we have not really publicized 

that widely because we had a very small number of drivers that 

actually experienced the restart and allowed us to do that comparison, but if we could do it with the data that we had back in 2010, 

certainly people can do that again and try to quantify that particular effect. So the best answer I can give you is research can 

help give you the answer on the increase in the probability of a 

crash or the number of crashes and then somebody has to hand 

that over to the economists and the regulators and say, well, how 

does that get balanced against any kind of productivity losses or 

gains. 

Mr. RICE. Well, if I am bouncing between the economists and 

regulators and the truckers, I am going to take the truckers every 

time. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

37 

Mr. JOVANIS. I like them, too. 

Mr. RICE. Do you think it is going to make any difference? And 

I heard an ‘‘I do not know’’ from you and three nos from these guys. 

I will take that. 

Thank you very much. Thank you all for coming today. Thank 

you for putting up with us. 

Chairman HANNA. Just one last question. Maybe two. 

Some drivers say the new rules actually result in them taking 

breaks when they are alert and forcing them into a situation that 

they are more tired. Maybe is that true, Mr. Long, Mr. Curl, Mr. 

Evans? 

Mr. LONG. Yes, I am hearing stories like that. One of the effects 

of this has been also where trucks are having a difficulty finding 

parking spaces in truck stops. The truck stops are overloaded at 

times, and that presents a lot of stress trying to get in and park 

and fuel and so forth. So yes, I am hearing some of those stories 

like you just described. 

Chairman HANNA. Mr. Curl? 

Mr. CURL. As for me, it has made quite a difference because a 

lot of my stuff is planned out to make certain—I have to get in my 

11 hours of driving each day to be able to arrive on the proper date 

for me to deliver and reload. So on some days, when I have 30- 

minute required breaks, sometimes rather than driving three to 

four hours and taking a quarter hour break, driving three to four 

hours, taking a quarter hour break, and each time I take a break 

I take care of my personal needs, but I also walk around, inspect 

my truck, and look at my load. And now because of this stipulation, 

it is going to move me further and further into the end of my day, 

into the period that Mr. Jovanis referred to earlier as being more 

dangerous. And that time period is added on to the following day, 

so I start the following day a little bit later because of that. And 

so even if the 30-minute breaks could be cumulative, that would be 

helpful. 

Chairman HANNA. Thank you. 

Mr. Evans? 

Mr. EVANS. Yes, sir. I think there are too many inconsistent circumstances with each driver, with each type of load, with each origin, with each destination, and to put a regulation that says that 

a driver has to take a 30-minute break at a certain period of time, 

at a certain period of day really puts a whole kink in the supply 

chain. And it is not going to make him a more safer driver by any 

means. 

Chairman HANNA. Go ahead, Doctor. 

Mr. JOVANIS. Well, I am sure that there are some people somewhere who do not want to stop after eight hours and take a mandatory break, but when you are dealing with large numbers of drivers 

as we have, the first five hours or so of driving has a relatively constant risk of a crash. After that, the increase of a crash with driving time goes up nonlinearly. So you are looking at 20 percent, 30 

percent, 40 percent, 50 percent the farther you go into you drive. 

So if you are into the eighth hour, you are into an elevated crash 

risk. 

Now, Mr. Curl’s suggestion about cumulative off-duty time, if you 

take a 15-minute break, drive for a while, take another 15-minute 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

38 

break, I think if you look at the literature on this, that half an 

hour that you experienced is almost the same as a half an hour single break in terms of its benefit, and the benefit is unmistakable 

in terms of reducing the risk of a crash. So I am surprised that the 

regulations do not allow that, exactly what you said, because if you 

look in the literature at how you should undertake tasks like driving a truck, exactly what Mr. Curl said is exactly how you should 

from a performance maintenance point of view. You know, you take 

a periodic break, you take care of whatever you have to do physically, you inspect the truck, you get back in. 

Chairman HANNA. So once again the government is overly prescriptive. And telling drivers something they already know that 

they want to live, live safely, and live to drive another day, and yet 

here we are telling them that they have to follow our rules rather 

than their own needs and experience. 

I want to thank you all for being here today. You provided important insights in how decisions are made in Washington, and how 

they affect small business. I also want to say that there is no one 

here that I have heard that does not find that the 2003 rule provided benefits and the studies show that. The question here today 

is does the additional rule provide any benefit? In fact, does it provide a disbenefit? And you have been helpful in that direction. 

I ask unanimous consent that members in the public have five 

legislative days to include supporting material into the hearing 

record. Hearing no objection, this is now adjourned. And again, 

thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

39 

A P P E N D I X 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ANNE S. FERRO, 

ADMINISTRATOR 

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONTRACTING AND WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

THE IMPACT OF THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY 

ADMINISTRATION’S 

HOURS OF SERVICE REGULATIONS ON SMALL 

BUSINESSES 

NOVEMBER 21, 2013 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Meng, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on the impact 

of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) December 27, 2011, hours of service (HOS) final rule on small businesses. 

Safety is FMCSA’s number one priority. Our employees and 

State partners are committed to preventing crashes and saving 

lives. Since FMCSA’s inception in 2000, we have witnessed a drop 

in the fatality rate from 0.205 fatalities in large truck and bus 

crashes per 100 million vehicle miles traveled by all motor vehicles 

to 0.136 in 2011, the most recent calendar year for which we have 

the final highway travel data. We have also seen a 26 percent decrease in the number of lives lost in large truck- and bus-related 

crashes, from 5,620 in 2000 to 4,183 in 2012. 

While the numbers represent significant progress, it is clear that 

much more must be done. Every life is precious and every FMCSA 

employee and each of our State partners are committed to doing 

everything we can to save as many lives as possible. The December 

2011 HOS final rule made reasonable and common sense changes 

to the HOS rules while helping to realize important safety benefits 

for the American public. We estimate the new requirements will 

prevent 1,400 crashes, 560 injuries, and save 19 lives each year. 

Changes to the HOS Rules Will Improve Safety 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

40 

Fatigue is a leading factor in large truck crashes. Under the previous HOS rules that were in effect until July 1, 2013, drivers operating large trucks could have faced demanding driving schedules 

that may have included workweeks up to approximately 82 hours. 

These extreme schedules, week after week, increase both the risk 

of fatigue-related crashes and long-term health problems for drivers. While the new rule issued on December 27, 2011, still allows 

for a demanding driving schedule, it reduces a driver’s average 

maximum allowable hours of work per week from 82 to 70 hours, 

ensuring that drivers have more time off to obtain adequate rest 

on a daily and weekly basis. 

The final rule is the product of years of fatigue research, safety 

studies, and analysis of public comments. FMCSA sought input 

from a wide range of stakeholders, including trucking companies, 

drivers, law enforcement, unions and safety advocates, and held 

numerous public listening sessions throughout the rulemaking 

process for the final rule. This unprecedented public engagement 

contributed to a balanced final rule that provides a net gain in public safety and driver health. 

In general, the changes in the 2011 final rule that took effect on 

July 1, 2013, particularly the changes to the 34-hour restart provision, are designed to help those drivers working the most intense 

schedules. The changes have the biggest impact on approximately 

15 percent of the drivers subject to the HOS requirements. These 

drivers used to average more than 70 hours of work per week. By 

contrast, drivers who averaged less than 70 hours per week were 

not significantly affected by the changes to the rule, including the 

new restart provision. They are not likely to approach the daily 

driving time limit, the daily on-duty limit after which driving is 

prohibited, or weekly on-duty limits after which driving is prohibited. 

Our research shows that 85 percent of the truck driver workforce 

(1.36 million drivers) has an average weekly work time of 60 hours 

or less and, thus, does not need to use the voluntary 34-hour restart. Of the remaining 15 percent (240,000 drivers), 160,000 work 

an average of 70 hours per week and approximately 80,000 drivers 

worked an average of 80 hours per week prior to July 1, 2013. 

While the Agency recognizes that the reduction in maximum weekly on-duty hours to 70 hours and 34-hour restart constraint impacts some drivers and companies, the trade-off is improved safety 

for everyone. This rule is expected to prevent 1,400 crashes and 

560 injuries, and save 19 lives each year. 

Overview of Changes to HOS Rules 

The changes made in the 2011 final rule keep in place many of 

the regulatory provisions implemented in the 2003 rule. For example, it maintains the 11 hour driving/14 hour daily work allowance 

and the long-standing weekly maximum working limits of 60 hours 

in 7 days and 70 hours in 8 days. Additionally, it maintains the 

option for a driver to use a ‘‘restart’’ if that driver wishes to drive 

more than the weekly maximum hours. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

41 

For those drivers wanting to exceed the maximum weekly working limits, the 2011 HOS rule limits the use of the ‘‘34-hour restart’’ to once a week (168 hours). This change limits a driver’s 

work week to 70 hours on average, compared to the previous rule, 

which allowed up to approximately 82 hours when the restart was 

used more than once in a seven-day period. The Agency took this 

action because working long daily and weekly hours on a continuing basis is associated with chronic fatigue, a high risk of 

crashes, and a number of serious chronic health conditions for drivers. The new restart provision does not affect drivers average 60 

hours or less per week of work time. For drivers working an average of 70 hours per week, the new restart is estimated to result in 

a loss of half an hour per week due to the requirement that two 

nighttime period between 1:00 and 5:00 am be included within the 

restart. It is important to note that the Agency’s research as well 

as information provided by industry representatives documented 

that a vast majority of drivers of large trucks will rarely, if ever, 

need to use a ‘‘restart.’’ 

Under the previous rules, alternating 14 hours on-duty and 10 

hours off-duty, a driver would reach 70 hours in less than five full 

days. After a 34-hour break, the driver could then begin this same 

cycle again, totaling 70 hours on-duty every 6 calendar days, for an 

average of almost 82 hours per calendar week. Limiting restarts to 

once every 168 hours—measured from the beginning of the previous restart—prevents this excessive buildup of on-duty hours, 

while still allowing a driver to use the restart provision to his/her 

advantage and avoiding the safety risks associated with more frequent restarts. 

Another key element of the 2011 final rule is the requirement 

that the 34-hour restart must include at least 2 periods between 

1:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. We did not opt for two periods between 

midnight and 6:00 a.m. as proposed in 2010. Only nighttime drivers who work m ore than 60 hours in seven consecutive days, or 

70 hours in eight consecutive days will be impacted by this change. 

Generally, the drivers most likely to be impacted by this provision 

work grueling and irregular schedules that include some nighttime 

driving. By contrast, nighttime operations of the major less-thantruckload (LTL) carriers should be impacted minimally, as their 

drivers generally receive 2 days off-duty a week. 

In an effort to address acute fatigue during the workday, the 

final rule requires drivers to take a 30-minute break, if more than 

8 consecutive hours on-duty have passed since the last off-duty (or 

sleeper-berth) period of at least 30 minutes, before continuing to 

drive. The driver can take this break at a time and place of his or 

her choosing, and may include meals, rest stops, and other rest periods. It is important to note that most drivers were already taking 

multiple short breaks during the work day. And the rule does not 

require that drivers take an additional break. The rule only requires that at least one of those breaks consist of at least 30 consecutive minutes off duty. 

The Agency acknowledges the concerns about the impact of the 

30-minute break requirement on small businesses and took approSBREP-219 with DISTILLER

42 

priate action on July 12, 2013, to align its long-standing regulatory 

guidance concerning off-duty time with the 30-minute rest break 

provision of the 2011 final rule. We determined that the guidance, 

which was originally issued in 1997, could have the unintended 

consequences of making it difficult for drivers and carriers, including many small businesses, to determine whether certain routine 

breaks during the workday may fulfill the 30-minute rest break. 

A Net Gain for the U.S. Economy 

The estimated annual cost of the 2011 final rule is 50 percent less ($530 million less) than FMCSA’s preliminary estimates discussed in the 2010 notice of proposed rulemaking. The new HOS 

rule will result in many public safety benefits, as well as benefits 

to the industry, through reduced health care costs associated withy 

crash injuries and overall improved driver health. The rule will 

provide an estimated $280 million in savings from fewer crashes 

and $470 million in savings from improved driver health. 

The economic benefits of the rule extend to small businesses 

through every crash that is avoided. Small trucking companies are 

the least likely in the industry to withstand the financial impact 

associated with a fatigue-related crash. The loss of revenues associated with the disabled commercial vehicle and the resulting litigation and settlements for a fatigue-related crash could easily wipe 

out a small trucking company. Safety is first and foremost about 

saving lives but it is also good business for the industry. 

U.S. Court of Appeals Decision 

On August 2, 2013, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals issued its 

opinion on petitions for review of the 2011 HOS rule filed by the 

American Trucking Associations, Public Citizen, and others [American Trucking Associations, Inc., v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, No. 12–1092 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 2, 2013)]. The Court 

upheld the 2011 HOS regulations in all respects except for the 30- 

minute break provision as it applies to short-haul drivers. 

As a result of the Court decision, the following drivers are no 

longer subject to the 30-minute break requirement: 

• All drivers (whether they hold a commercial driver’s license (CDL) or not) that operate within 100 air-miles of their 

normal work reporting location and satisfy the time limitations 

and recordkeeping requirements of 49 CFR § 395.1(e)(1). 

• All non-CDL drivers that operate within a 150 air-mile radius of the location where the driver reports for duty and satisfy the time limitations and recordkeeping requirements of 49 

CFR § 395.1(e)(2). 

While the Court’s mandate was not scheduled to take effect until 

52 days after entry of judgment, the Agency ceased enforcement of 

the 30-minute rest break provision against short-haul operations 

effective August 5, 2013, three days after the ruling. The Agency 

also requested that its State enforcement partners cease enforcement of the State versions of this provision beginning August 5, 

2013, with the understanding that they would not be found in vioSBREP-219 with DISTILLER

43 

lation of the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) 

regulations (49 CFR Part 350) for doing so. And, on October 28, 

FMCSA formally amended the 2011 final rule to provide an exception from the 30-minute rest break requirement for the short-haul 

drivers who are not required to prepare records of duty status 

(RODS), consistent with the Court’s decision. 

Through our quick action following the Court’s decision, we 

worked to ensure that the small businesses affected by the decision 

were provided with immediate relief from the 30-minute rest break 

requirement. 

Applying the HOS Requirements to a Complex and Diverse 

Trucking Industry 

Over almost 2 decades of HOS controversy, a common concern 

has been leveled by the trucking industry over what is often referred to as a ‘‘one size fits all’’ HOS rule. The Agency has crafted 

a rule that provides as much flexibility as possible. Our past experience from the May 2000 HOS notice of proposed rulemaking 

proves that efforts to put into regulations multiple options for such 

a complex and diverse industry are more likely to result in a rule 

that neither the industry nor the enforcement community can understand and apply consistently. With this in mind, FMCSA has 

maintained an open-door policy with the industry and demonstrated a willingness to have face-to-face meetings with various 

segments of the trucking industry to explore the feasibility of limited 2-year exemptions, as authorized by Congress in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). 

Exemption Requests to the 30-Minute Off-Duty Break Rule 

Our efforts to provide flexibility through the exemption process 

have enabled the Agency to address in a transparent manner the 

most pressing concerns of the trucking industry. The transparency 

involves a Federal Register notice-and-comment process through 

which all interested parties, including enforcement agencies, safety 

advocacy groups and other members of the trucking industry, have 

the opportunity to see all applications for exemptions from the 

HOS requirements and to submit comments to the Agency for consideration. 

To date, the major concern expressed by several segments of the 

industry has been the 30-minute break requirement. Specifically, 

certain industries have identified operational challenges with the 

locations at which the break would be taken and whether certain 

limitations on drivers’ ability to leave the vehicle would prevent 

them from using their rest breaks to satisfy the new rule. 

The Agency included the 30-minute break provision in the final 

rule to address acute fatigue during the workday, requiring drivers 

to take a 30-minute off duty break, if more than 8 consecutive 

hours on-duty have passed since the last off-duty (or sleeper berth) 

period of at least 30 minutes, before continuing to drive. The driver 

can take this break at a time and place of his or her choosing, and 

the break may include meals, rest stops, and other rest periods. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

44 

Several organizations, including two Federal departments, have 

applied for exemptions to the 30-minute rest break provisions. The 

Agency has worked quickly to seek public comment on each of 

these applications and to address industry concerns to the extent 

that the exemption would achieve a level of safety equal to or 

greater than the 2011 final rule would provide. 

• U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC). FMCSA granted exemptions to 

the 30-minute rest break provision to the DOE and DOD’s 

SDDC to enable their contract driver-employees transporting 

security-sensitive materials to be treated the same as drivers 

transporting explosives, allowing these drivers to use 30 minutes or more of ‘‘attendance time’’ to meet the rest break requirement, provided they are performing no other work-related 

activity during this time. 

• National Pork Producers Council (NPPC). FMCSA received 

an application from the NPPC on behalf of its members and 

other agricultural organizations for a complete exemption from 

the 30-minute rest break requirements for commercial motor 

vehicle (CMV) drivers transporting livestock. The request is 

based on assertions of risk to livestock being transported during hot and cold weather if the transporting vehicle remains 

stationary for an extended period of time. The Agency solicited 

and received public comments and is reviewing the request. 

Prior to this exemption request, the NPPC requested and was 

granted a 90-day waiver from the rest break provision from 

July 11–October 9 to protect the livestock from extreme summer heat that could have proved dangerous to the animals’ 

health. 

• National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA). 

FMCSA received an application from the NRMCA for an exemption from the 30-minute rest break provision. The exemption would apply industry-wide to all motor carriers and CMV 

drivers operating ready-mixed concrete trucks. Although transportation of many ready-mixed concrete loads takes place within the parameters of the Agency’s ‘‘short haul’’ provisions and 

is not subject to the rest break requirement, the NRMCA requested the exemption for those instances when the short-haul 

requirements cannot be met. The Agency has solicited and received public comments and its reviewing this request. 

• National Armored Car Association (NACA). FMCSA received an application from the NACA for an exemption to the 

30-minute rest break provision. The exemption would have applied industry-wide to all armored vehicle carriers and drivers 

and would have enabled drivers engaged in the transportation 

of currency, coins, precious metals, and other valuables to use 

any period of 30 minutes or more of ‘‘attendance time’’ to meet 

the rest break requirements. NACA submitted its application 

prior to the August 2 D.C. Circuit Court decision that vacated 

the 30-minute rest break provisions as it applies to short haul 

drivers. As the requirement would, therefore, no longer apply 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

45 

to most short-haul transportation by armored cars, NACA 

withdrew its application for an exemption. 

• Oregon Trucking Association (OTA). FMCSA received an 

application for an exemption from the OTA for a limited exemption from the 30-minute rest-break requirement on behalf 

of motor carriers and their drivers who transport timber from 

Oregon forestlands during periods in which fire safety restrictions limit their hours of operation. FMCSA will soon publish 

a Federal Register notice requesting public comment on the 

OTA’s October 2013 application. 

In addition, FMCSA’s consideration of the various applications 

for exemptions, the Agency has fulfilled its commitment to continue 

to gather additional information and data concerning the HOS requirements. We made a commitment in the preamble of our December 2011 final rule to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the 

relative crash risk by driving hour and the impacts of the final 

rule. We look forward to continuing to review new information as 

it becomes available. 

Field Study on the 34-Hour Restart 

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP21, Pub. L. 112–141), enacted on July 6, 2012, mandated that 

FMCSA conduct a field study on the efficacy of the restart rule. I 

am pleased to report to you that FMCSA has completed the work 

mandated by Congress and we are currently in the process of preparing the final rule report. 

Researchers worked with three motor carriers to conduct a naturalistic field study with drivers who used the restart provisions. 

The study ran from January–July 2013 and included 106 CMV 

drivers aged 24–69 with commercial driving experience ranging 

from less than one year to more than 39 years. The drivers represented diverse types of trucking operations, including 44 local 

drivers, 26 regional drivers, and 36 over-the-road drivers. Participating drivers provided a total of 1,260 days of data and drove a 

total of 414,937 miles during the study. 

Using the drivers’ official duty logs to identify the periods when 

they were on duty and when they were driving and to define their 

duty cycles and restart breaks, the drivers wore wrist activity monitors to monitor their sleep/wake patterns. A Psychomotor Vigilance 

Test (PVT) measured driver fatigue levels 3 times a day, and drivers also self-reported their own sleepiness. Additionally, a truckmounted lane tracking system measured lane departures. 

Comparisons were made among all these factors preceded by a 

restart break containing only one nighttime period versus duty cycles preceded by a restart break containing two or more nighttime 

periods. FMCSA will transmit these findings to Congress by spring 

2014. 

Assessing the Feasibility of a Split Sleeper Berth Pilot Program 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

46 

From January 2010 to May 2011, the Agency conducted an inresidence laboratory study that examined three sleep conditions: 

consolidated nighttime sleep; split sleep; and consolidated daytime 

sleep. The study found that daytime consolidated sleep resulted in 

less total sleep time, increased sleepiness, and an increase in blood 

glucose and testosterone at the end of the workweek. However, the 

study found that performance was not significantly affected by the 

period during the day when a driver had the opportunity for sleep. 

Results of this study suggest that when consolidated nighttime 

sleep is not possible, split sleep is preferable to consolidated daytime sleep. 

At this time, FMCSA is developing a pilot study to demonstrate 

how split sleep in conjunction with the Fatigue Management Program (FMP) and the use of Electronic Logging Devices (or ELDs) 

could be used to improve driver rest and alertness. The Agency requests the participation of motor carriers that would benefit from 

flexibility with regard to the sleeper berth provision, with appropriate constraints on the use of split sleep, and would be willing 

to measure driver alertness and changes in health metrics. The 

Agency plans to work with the National Association of Small 

Trucking Companies, the American Trucking Associations, and the 

Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association to recruit drivers 

and motor carriers for this study. 

Opportunities and Challenges to Implementing the New 

HOS Rules 

Throughout the public engagement process we used in developing 

the new HOS requirements, the Agency heard about the need for 

flexibility in the HOS rules from the trucking industry. We included two changes to help the industry and drivers with options 

for recording certain rest breaks as off-duty time. These changes 

went into effect on February 27, 2012. 

Off-Duty in a Parked CMV 

Prior to February 2012, the definition of ‘‘on-duty time’’ included 

all time that the driver spends in the CMV, with the exception 

being the time the driver spends in the sleeper berth. The 2011 

final rule changed the definition to provide drivers with greater 

flexibility. As a result, the time a driver spends resting in a parked 

CMV may be considered ‘‘off-duty time’’ provided the driver is relieved of all duties and responsibilities for performing work, including paperwork. 

Off-Duty in Passenger Seat for Team Drivers 

The final rule also allows truck drivers in team-driver operations 

to include up to 2 hours in the passenger seat immediately before 

or after 8 consecutive hours in the sleeper berth as off-duty time. 

This means the driver may log up to 2 hours in the passenger seat 

as off-duty time and combine it with the 8 consecutive hours in the 

sleeper berth to accumulate 10 consecutive hours off duty. As an 

alternative, the driver may use 1 hour in the passenger seat before 

the 8-hour sleeper berth period and 1 hour in the passenger seat 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

47 

after the sleeper berth period to accumulate 10 consecutive hours. 

Truck drivers were allowed to begin using this new, more flexible 

regulatory provision on February 27, 2012. 

Compliance Assistance Materials for the Industry 

Knowing the impact the rule has on small businesses, the Agency continues to provide comprehensive compliance assistance information at its website (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/HOS) to assist 

trucking companies that are still training their drivers and dispatchers on the changes to the 34-hour restart and the new 30- 

minute rest-break requirement. 

Prior to the July 1 compliance date, the Agency posted ‘‘Hours 

of Service Logbook Examples’’ at its website—this publication provides detailed illustrations of how the new rules would apply in 

many common scenarios that truck drivers face in filling out their 

logbooks. The examples cover the changes to the on-duty definition 

and how the time would be recorded in the logbooks and the 

changes to the 34-hour restart. The examples have been updated 

to cover the Court-imposed changes to the 30-minute break requirement. 

In addition to our publications, FMCSA participates on a monthly basis on two separate satellite radio programs geared towards 

the trucking community (i.e., the Dave Nemo Show and the Mark 

Willis Show—the successor to the Evan Lockridge Report), during 

which senior Agency officials provide updates on the Agency’s 

major safety initiatives and answer questions from drivers and carriers. Most of the broadcasters over the past year have included extensive discussions about the HOS requirements. We provided numerous clarifications of the new rule and frequent reminders of the 

July 1, 2013, compliance date for the changes to the 34-hour restart and the new 30-minute break requirement. 

Through the development of compliance assistance materials and 

participation in satellite radio broadcasts, the Agency provided carriers and drivers a means of learning about the new HOS requirements at minimal cost. 

To supplement the HOS regulations, FMCSA partnered with 

Transport Canada and a consortium of government, motor carriers 

and researchers to develop the North American Fatigue Management Program (NAFMP). This free online website provides extensive training and educational resources for truck and bus drivers. 

Based on years of research on fatigue, a series of 10 instructional 

modules inform drivers, their families, and carrier safety officials 

on effective ways to prevent driver fatigue. The NAFMP can be 

found at www.nafmp.org. 

Conclusion 

Since Congress directed the Department of Transportation to undertake an HOS rulemaking in ICC Termination Act of 1995, the 

Department has focused on implementing a new rule that will help 

reduce the number of fatigue-related fatal crashes involving large 

trucks. FMCSA remains committed to working with its safety partSBREP-219 with DISTILLER

48 

ners and stakeholders to provide an HOS regulatory approach that 

raises the safety bar for the industry and saves lives on our roadways. Additionally, we remain committed to ensuring that this regulation, like all our regulations, takes into account the specific 

needs of small businesses, which represent so much of the industry 

we regulate. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss FMCSA’s implementation of the 2011 HOS final rule and its impact on small businesses. 

I am glad to answer your questions. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

49 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 39 here 85596.001
50 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 40 here 85596.002
51 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 41 here 85596.003
52 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 42 here 85596.004
53 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 43 here 85596.005
54 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 44 here 85596.006
55 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 45 here 85596.007
56 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 46 here 85596.008
57 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 47 here 85596.009
58 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 48 here 85596.010
59 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 49 here 85596.011
60 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 50 here 85596.012
61 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 51 here 85596.013
62 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 52 here 85596.014
63 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 53 here 85596.015
64 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 54 here 85596.016
65 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 55 here 85596.017
66 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 56 here 85596.018
67 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 57 here 85596.019
68 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 58 here 85596.020
69 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 59 here 85596.021
70 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 60 here 85596.022
71 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 61 here 85596.023
72 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 62 here 85596.024
73 

Good morning Chairman Hanna, Ranking Member Meng, and 

distinguished members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify on matters of importance to our nation’s truck 

drivers and the tens of thousands of small business trucking professionals who are members of the Owner-Operator Independent 

Drivers Association (OOIDA). 

My name is Tilden Curl. I am a small business trucker from 

Olympia, Washington. I have more than 20 years of trucking experience and have been an OOIDA member since 2001. I currently 

operate a step-deck trailer through seven western states, often 

hauling specialized freight. I am proud to be here today testifying 

on behalf of OOIDA and my fellow professional drivers. 

As you are likely aware, OOIDA is the national trade association 

representing the interests of independent owner-operators and professional drives on all issues that affect small business truckers. 

The more than 150,000 members of OOIDA are small business men 

and women in all 50 states and every Congressional district who 

collectively own and operate more than 200,000 individual heavyduty trucks. 

The majority of the trucking industry in our country is made up 

of small businesses, as more than 93 percent of all motor carriers 

have less than 20 trucks in their fleet and 78 percent of carriers 

have fleets of just five or fewer trucks. In fact, one-truck motor carriers represent nearly half of the total number of trucking companies operating in the United States. It is estimated that OOIDA 

members and their small business trucking peers collectively haul 

around 40 percent of the freight moved by truck nationally each 

year. 

Before discussing the hours-of-service (HOS) regulations, I would 

like to personally thank Administrator Ferro for recently joining an 

OOIDA Board Member during a two-day, thousand-mile ‘‘ridealong’’ from the Washington, DC area to St. Louis. She is the first 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) Administrator to join a trucker out on the road over a multiple day period, 

and OOIDA appreciates her willingness to experience some of the 

challenges truckers face on a daily basis. 

I also want to highlight OOIDA’s commitment to highway safety 

and discuss a very memorable day in my life as an example of the 

focus our nation’s professional truckers place on safety. 

Just after noon on October 27, 2010, I was driving southbound 

on Highway 99 near Tulare, California in the San Joaquin Valley. 

A vehicle lost control and crossed traffic, finally coming to rest with 

its front wheels stuck over the railroad tracks that parallel the 

highway. After stopping my truck to provide assistance, I saw a 

train coming up the tracks. 

An elderly woman exited the passenger side of the car, and I 

yelled for her to get clear of the tracks. I then noticed that the driver was unresponsive and trapped inside. At first, the door was 

locked and could not be opened, but I was able to squeeze my arm 

through the slightly lowered driver’s window and unlock it. Working quickly, I was able to unfasten the man’s seatbelt and drag him 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

74 

1OOIDA Foundation, ‘‘Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Profile 2012,’’ AVAILABLE: 

http://www.ooida.com/OOIDA%20Foundation/RecentResearch/OOIDP.asp. 2 Based on the ‘‘Average Annual Miles Per Driver’’ of 13,476 miles driven per year as calculated by the Federal Highway Administration, see http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/ 

bar8.htm. 3Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration—Analysis Division, ‘‘Large Truck and Bus 

Crash Facts 2011,’’ Trends Table 1. Large Truck and Bus Fatal Crash Statistics, 1975–2011, 

page 4, AVAILABLE: http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/LTBCF2011/ 

LargeTruckandBusCrashFacts2011.aspx. 

out of the car and away from the area just seconds before the train 

collided with the stranded vehicle. 

I was honored as the 28th annual Goodyear Highway Hero for 

my action that day, but I feel that what I did was what most professional truckers would do if presented with the same situation— 

intervening to save the life of another motorist on the highway. 

Safety is something that truckers must focus on every single day, 

and as small business owners, OOIDA members have a unique perspective. The vast majority of OOIDA’s members own their own 

truck, so if we are involved in an accident, no matter who is at 

fault, our businesses and our family incomes are directly impacted. 

Indeed, many small truckers have had to declare bankruptcy due 

to the impacts from an accident that was the fault of another motorist. 

Safety and economics are inherently linked, and that is reflected 

in the safety record of OOIDA members out on the road. With a 

quarter century of truck driving experience, the average OOIDA 

member has safely driven around two million miles over the course 

of their career in trucking without a reportable accident.1 To put 

that in perspective, the average passenger car driver would need 

to drive for at least 150 years to reach that level of experience out 

on the highway.2 Indeed, Administrator Ferro recently honored 

several dozen OOIDA Safe Driving Award recipients, with many 

members having 30 to 40 years of accident-free driving, and one 

award recognizing an OOIDA Board Member with 62 years of safe 

driving. 

Coming from this viewpoint, OOIDA strongly feels that the key 

to highway safety above any regulation or technology is ensuring 

there is a safe, well-trained, and knowledgeable driver behind the 

wheel of every tractor-trailer on the highway. To see why this is 

so important, one only has to review safety data from recent years 

which showed a considerable drop in truck-involved facility accidents during 2008 and 2009 when the economy faced significant 

challenges. This time period saw a significant reduction in the 

number of new truckers out on the road, while experienced drivers 

stuck through the rough patch. The result was a drop in accident 

rates during that period.3 With the improvement in the economy, 

we have seen an increase in both entry-level drivers on the road 

and in truck-involved fatality accidents. 

Further, OOIDA’s examination of FMCSA-published accident 

data has shown that the technologies that many vendors, major 

motor carriers, and government agencies are advancing as highway 

safety solutions miss the mark by a wide margin, especially when 

compared to safe and experienced truckers. OOIDA’s research arm, 

the OOIDA Foundation, has compared crash data for major carSBREP-219 with DISTILLER

75 

riers who utilize ‘‘safety technology’’ such as electronic on-board recorders, speed limiters, and stability control systems in trucks 

owned by the carriers and driven by company drivers to crash data 

for major carriers that utilize owner-operators who own their own 

trucks that generally do not have this technology. The experienced 

drivers for large owner-operator carriers drive an average of 1.72 

million miles, while technology-focused carriers on average drive 

500,000 fewer miles between accidents. Indeed, several of these 

carriers had half as many miles between accidents as the owneroperators. These statistics, which reflect real on-the-road safety 

performance, certainly point to a reality where safety technology 

replacing safe, knowledgeable, and experienced drivers is wishful 

thinking. 

OOIDA’s top safety priority is ensuring that long-overdue entrylevel driver training requirements are addressed in short order. 

Earlier this year, OOIDA issued a comprehensive entry-level driver 

training proposal as part of its ‘‘Truckers for Safety’’ highway safety agenda. You can find more about this proposal online at http:// 

www.truckersforsafety.com. In the view of OOIDA and the professional truckers we are proud to have as members, ensuring that 

new drivers are well trained will lead to improvements on a longlist of issues facing the industry, including those beyond safety 

matters. 

We appreciate Administrator Ferro’s public commitment to move 

forward on entry-level driver training requirements. OOIDA is 

hopeful that FMCSA will soon be taking steps toward development 

these long overdue rules. Instead of focusing on more restrictive 

regulations and costly technology mandates, the priority should be 

on the lower cost and more effective approach of ensuring that new 

long-haul tractor-trailer drivers get the safety skills they need at 

the beginning of their trucking careers. The most important and 

most impactful piece of safety equipment on a truck is a properly 

trained and knowledgeable driver, and actions to make that happen should be supported by the entire industry. 

WHY FLEXIBILITY IN HOS RULES IS IMPORTANT FOR 

PROFESSIONAL TRUCK DRIVERS 

From the perspective of many truckers, increasingly restrictive 

HOS rules combine with industry pressures to put us in a constant 

Catch-22 situation as we work to operate safely and efficiently. 

Trucking is a very diverse industry, with many different types of 

operations and countless demands. A significant part of our work 

as professional drivers is balancing all of these demands while ensuring that we operate our vehicle as safely and efficiently as possible. Over time, changes to HOS regulations have reduced the 

flexibility we depend upon to maintain that balance, putting professional truckers in a situation where they are at risk of being penalized by either enforcement officials or by the economic realities of 

the industry for stopping to rest, avoiding traffic or another hazard, 

or being delayed at a shipper or receiver. 

Truckers are normally paid by how many miles the drive, hence 

the saying ‘‘if the wheels aren’t turning, you aren’t earning.’’ While 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

76 

there is certainly an incentive to drive as many miles as possible 

during the day, there are also other factors that pressure drivers. 

Some examples include potential fines from customers for missing 

a delivery window and constant contact from your carrier’s dispatcher insisting you drive just a little further, even if you are fatigued or too tired to safely accommodate a customer’s demands. 

Indeed, most of the challenges within this industry find their root 

cause in requirements and demands from shippers and receivers 

who are not subject to the same regulatory restrictions and economic consequences as truckers. 

Under current rules, a driver is allowed to drive a maximum of 

11 hours while operating within a 14-hour-on-duty window. The 

driver is then required to be off-duty for 10 consecutive hours, of 

which 8 hours are to be used as sleeper berth time. The combination of the 14-hour on-duty period and the required 10-hour break 

period constitutes a 24-hour cycle. The only exception to this is that 

after 8 hours of sleeper time, a driver may proceed to a location 

where driver services can be obtained and be off-duty not driving 

for the remaining 2 hours. This allowance still does not allow the 

driver to exceed the 11 hours of driving in a 24-hour period without 

a total of 10 hours off duty. 

Because of the industry’s pay-by-mile system, the vast majority 

of truckers are not compensated for any of the time spent not driving or for any non-driving activities. This is the case even if that 

time is spent doing what the HOS regulations consider ‘‘on-duty’’ 

because the trucker is working or is required to be ready to work. 

Activities that fall under the definition of ‘‘on-duty/not-driving’’ include completing paperwork, fueling, performing pre- or post-trip 

inspections, undergoing random safety inspections, and general 

maintenance. Loading and unloading the truck and waiting in the 

truck for the loading dock at the shipper or receiver to open up are 

also ‘‘on-duty/not-driving.’’ Hence the pressure to maximize time 

driving. 

Further, while some of these activities are predictable, being detained by a shipper for multiple hours is not, and even less predictable are challenges like being stuck in traffic due to an accident, 

congestion, inclement weather, or having to pull into a truck stop 

for a tire replacement or an engine repair. Predictable or not, these 

‘‘on-duty/not-driving’’ activities cut into the trucker’s 14-hour day, 

impacting their ability to spend time driving and earning compensation. 

Without flexibility, a few hours of unanticipated delay can have 

a significant impact on a trucker’s schedule across many days. 

Flexibility does not mean, and I cannot emphasize this enough, 

that truckers should be given a green light to drive when they are 

tired or without sufficient rest. Instead, flexibility means giving the 

professional truck driver the ability to better manage their daily 

and weekly schedule. To operate safety and efficiently, we need the 

ability to take rest when we are best able to get the rest we need, 

to drive when we determine that we are in the best position to do 

so, and to manage our schedule appropriately. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

77 

One of the key reasons why flexibility is important is that we 

will spend many hours during our week waiting at a shipper or receiver for the opportunity to load or unload. Shippers and receivers, 

including many Fortune 100 and 500 companies that tout how efficiently their businesses operate and how much attention they pay 

to ensuring they are ‘‘good places to work,’’ have little concern for 

making more efficient use of the truck driver’s time. 

Not only is this detention time generally uncompensated, but 

also this time spent waiting is considered work under HOS rules; 

as such, it cuts into our available on-duty time. This directly reduces the amount of time we are able to be productive, even though 

much of this time is often taken in the sleeper berth in preparation 

for the upcoming on-duty period. The issue of detention time is not 

endemic to the U.S. trucking industry, as Australia has recently 

passed legislation recognizing that the entire logistic chain is responsible for the safe and efficient movement of freight and passengers. They have initiated a ‘‘chain of responsibility’’ where all 

parts of the supply chain are held accountable for safety and security on the roadways. 

Flexibility in HOS rules is a key factor in ensuring that professional drivers are able to make other safety-focused decisions. 

While sitting through congestion, accidents, and construction naturally impact driving time, the majority of experienced truckers understand the benefits of avoiding these situations altogether. Most 

of us will plan our trips through major cities to avoid rush hour 

traffic, not only because it improves our timing, but also because 

it significantly reduces our risk of being involved in an accident because there will be fewer passenger cars on the road. Scheduling 

flexibility is necessary for this to happen. 

Most importantly, experienced truckers are able to follow their 

own bodies when it comes to ensuring they are alert and refreshed 

while driving. HOS regulations should ensure that drivers are not 

penalized if they take a break whenever or for whatever length of 

time they need during their driving day to get needed rest. One 

driver may need several breaks of varying lengths distributed 

throughout the driving window, another may need multiple breaks 

later in the driving window, and yet another may need only one 

daily break for a meal or rest during this time. The much-studied 

circadian rhythms vary widely from person to person, making it 

difficult for a one-size-fits-all approach. 

Certain types of trucking will present unique challenges for the 

trucker as they work to navigate between regulatory restrictions 

and shipper demands while driving safely and efficiently. Specialized over-dimensional and over-weight loads are an example. The 

movement of these loads is not only governed by hours-of-service 

rules and other federal regulations, but also by state and local restrictions. In many instances, big and heavy loads are restricted to 

daylight-only operations only on certain highways. There are safety 

reasons behind these restrictions, but a misalignment between the 

permit restrictions and federal HOS rules can make scheduling extremely difficult. Further, the new 30-minute break requirement 

has added new difficulties, as drivers for permitted loads face chalSBREP-219 with DISTILLER

78 

lenges locating safe parking and the break cuts into the time they 

are able to drive before the permit’s curfew. 

Truckers must also deal with customer schedules that do not reflect HOS restrictions. Many shippers demand ‘‘just-in-time’’ deliveries and require that deliveries or pick-ups be made at a certain 

time of day. Truckers must operate accordingly to meet the demands of these shippers. An example of this in my current operations is one customer only receives between six in the morning 

and noon. Another usually only has product ready to ship after 

three in the afternoon. 

It’s my responsibility to get there on time, and running out of 

hours is not a valid reason for being late, and we can only plan for 

what we can control. 

One major area of concern for OOIDA, especially when considering the role of HOS rules and highway safety, is the pressure 

that the continuous on-duty clock places on truckers. The nonstoppable nature of the 14-hour clock, which has been in place 

since 2005, demands that we constantly push ahead to ensure we 

maximize our driving time for the day. This discourages drivers 

from taking short rest breaks throughout their day, with clear safety impacts. Another change from 2005, the elimination of the ability for truckers to split their time in the sleeper berth, adds additional pressure on truckers to push through and drive, even when 

they may want or need rest because they cannot afford to trade onduty time for rest. 

SUMMARY OF 2011’S CHANGES TO THE HOS REGULATIONS & RECENT ACTIONS 

On July 1st of this year, changes to the hours-of-service regulations finalized by FMCSA in 2011 went into effect. It is important 

to note that these changes were the result of a court settlement between the agency and a number of advocacy groups who sought 

further restrictions on the HOS regulations. While FMCSA did not 

initiate these changes, OOIDA feels that they do not advance the 

goal of improving highway safety, and as you will see, are likely 

to have a negative impact on safety while focusing on micro-managing a driver’s time. 

The main provisions of these changes were to place restrictions 

on the use of the ‘‘34-hour restart’’ and a requirement that drivers 

take a minimum rest break during their driving period. While 

many groups argued for a reduction in the 11-hour total driving 

time period, FMCSA thankfully rejected this proposal. 

The restart is a minimum 34-hour off-duty period that allows a 

trucker to restart their 70-hour ‘‘on-duty’’ cycle. Prior to the most 

recent change, truckers were able to reset their duty clock more 

than once a week by taking any consecutive 34-hour period off. 

Under the current rule, that restart is limited to once per seven 

day/168 hour period. The 34 hours of off-duty time must include 

two consecutive periods from 1 AM to 5 AM based on the trucker’s 

‘‘home terminal’’ time zone and not the time zone where the trucker is currently operating. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

79 

4OOIDA Foundation, ‘‘OOIDA New HOS Regulations Survey,’’ November 2013. 

The new regulations also require a mandatory break of at least 

a 30-minute period after eight hours of elapsed on-duty time. Drivers may drive only if less than eight hours has passed since the 

end of the driver’s last off-duty period of at least 30 minutes. However, the break does not pause the 14-hour on-duty clock. 

On August 2nd, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a decision in response to a pair of challenges brought 

against the new regulations. The first challenge was filed by the 

American Trucking Associations (OOIDA was an intervener on this 

suit) and the second was filed by the Advocates for Highway and 

Auto Safety, Public Citizen, and the Truck Safety Coalition. The 

decision vacated the rule’s application of the mandatory 30-minute 

break to short-haul drivers while not making other changes. 

On October 31, Representatives Hanna, Rice, and Michaud introduced H.R. 3403, the True Understanding of the Economy and 

Safety Act. This legislation, which OOIDA supports, calls for a 

comprehensive review by the Government Accountability Office of 

the new restart provision, including a review of a still forthcoming 

naturalistic driving study of the restart required by Congress in 

the most recent highway bill. Until that review is completed, H.R. 

3404 mandates that the industry resume operating with the previous version of the restart provision that does not include two 

overnight 1 AM to 5 AM periods and restricts its use to once every 

seven days. 

OOIDA’S ‘‘NEW HOS REGULATIONS SURVEY’’ 

In light of these recent changes and the continuing discussion regarding the regulations, OOIDA reached out to its membership in 

October, four months after the changes went into effect, to gain an 

understanding of how they were impacting truckers, their operations, and their safety behind the wheel. 

The OOIDA Foundation received over four thousand responses to 

the e-mailed survey request and found, in short, that the ‘‘rule 

changes have had a dramatic effect on the lives and livelihoods of 

small business truckers and professional drivers.’’ 4 A copy of the 

survey results has been provided to the Committee, and I will highlight some of the findings below. 

The FMCSA announced the purpose of the rule changes was to 

reduce the possibility of truck driver fatigue; however, feedback 

from professional truckers shows differently. While 53 percent of 

the respondents said the new regulations did not decrease nor increase their fatigue, 46 percent stated they actually felt more fatigued following the changes. 

Comments from truckers explained how this is the case: ‘‘There 

will be more driver fatigue because of this rule, not less, because 

drivers will try to maximize as many miles and hours of driving as 

possible; because of the new rules, they can only get a reset once 

in a seven day period.’’ Members stated that the new rules caused 

‘‘more fatigue, less home time, less flexibility, and less money.’’ AnSBREP-219 with DISTILLER

80 

other member said, ‘‘The new 30-minute rule has had no positive 

effect on reducing my fatigue.’’ 

In addition, the new 34-hour restart provision has impacted the 

ability of OOIDA members to best schedule their loads and time 

home with their families. 79 percent of the respondents claimed 

that the limitation of one restart per week has affected their use 

of the 34-hour restart to best schedule their time on the road and 

at home, with 31 percent stating they have been significantly impacted: 

• ‘‘The restrictive nature of only using the reset once every 

168 hours not only has decreased the number of hours and 

miles I can drive, but [also] when I’d normally be off weekends. 

Now if I experience a delay in getting home my reset keeps 

getting pushed back further and throwing off my schedule.’’ 

• ‘‘I used the 34 hr restart every weekend and it gave me 

more time to work thru the week, which increased my productivity and gave me more home time. [Now] I sometimes have 

to take the time off away from home...This has effectively 

taken Family Time away.’’ 

Further, this change has caused 65 percent of respondents to lose 

income, with more than half of all respondents reporting lost mileage and a reduced number of loads hauled per week. On several 

occasions, members had long wait periods between loads but were 

unable to utilize the restart either because the 34 hours did not 

cover two periods between 1 AM and 5 AM, or because 168 hours 

had not elapsed since their previous restart. In general, this forced 

members to lose time at home, which caused them to take on shorter hauls and reduced their income. 

• ‘‘Where before I could rest due to shipper/receiver delays, 

weather, or whatever, now its run, run, run till 7 days have 

passed then get a rest or slow down till hours catch up.’’ 

• ‘‘Since shippers and receivers control my hours of service, 

my time is no longer as flexible, I must enter larger cities/more 

traffic areas in the morning & evening rush hour times instead 

of regulating my own time and working around traffic. 

The mandatory break has impacted 86 percent of the respondents, and over 60 percent stated that their operations were either 

moderately or significantly affected by the regulation. Frequently, 

members stated they felt more fatigued because of the mandatory 

break, and instead of taking a nap, truckers are simply sitting in 

their truck, waiting for their break to end. 

Perhaps one of the biggest concerns was taking the time to find 

parking just in order to take the 30-minute break: ‘‘Most of the 

time my 30 minutes turns into 60 minutes or more by the time you 

find parking and get back on the road.’’ One member stated the 

‘‘half hour break has increased stress, cut down time to drive, cut 

down on the ability to find a parking spot, and extended my day, 

increasing fatigue.’’ 

The final question proposed, ‘‘If you could change one hours-ofservice regulation, what and how would you change it.’’ The two 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

81 

largest responses were changing the 34-hour regulations back to 

the previous structure (46%) and eliminating the 14-hour running 

clock provision (30%) and allowing truckers to stop that clock 

through a rest break or some other off-duty activity. 

These opinions are the views of the actual truckers that have to 

operate under the dual pressures of regulatory constraints and 

pressures from shippers, carriers, and others in the industry. The 

comments from truckers responding to the survey focused significantly on the impact these changes are having on their ability to 

get the rest they need. They also focused on the pressure that has 

resulted from limiting the flexibility they as truckers have under 

the regulations. Importantly, they also addressed the impact that 

the regulations have had on their ability to earn a living. Ensuring 

that truckers are able to earn a good living has unavoidable ties 

to highway safety, and these impacts should be considered as part 

of any regulatory review. 

IMPACT OF THE NEW RULES ON MY OPERATIONS 

The impacts of these new rules on my operations closely tracks 

the results of the survey OOIDA conducted of our membership. I 

have experienced an impact with all of the aforementioned issues. 

I have less home time, more pressure, and increased fatigue. These 

rules remove the flexibility that is so badly needed to operate safely 

and efficiently. 

The 30-minute beak rule. - Before this rule was enacted, I 

would take a break every 21⁄2 to 4 hours. I would stop and attend 

to my personal needs and walk around my truck to visually inspect 

my load and equipment, taking about 15 minutes each time. An example of my day would be driving for four hours, a 15-minute 

break, four more hours of driving, another 15-minute break, and 

then three hours of driving until I went off-duty. Now, because I 

no longer have control over my break times and duration, I frequently drive 5–6 hours, take my 30-minute break, and drive the 

remaining time available under the 11-hour driving window 

straight through. Instead of having my driving day split out into 

smaller periods with short breaks in between, my driving day is 

split into two longer periods with only one break. 

Two 1 AM-5 AM periods. - This provision has caused me to 

delay my start time on many occasions, which often puts me in the 

middle of Seattle rush-hour traffic or other heavy traffic along my 

route. When 34 hours without time stipulations was the rule, I 

could take my 34 hours off and leave early enough to avoid traffic 

during rush hour in the morning in Seattle and Portland, OR in 

the afternoon. My inability to avoid traffic now costs me as much 

as 2 hours of travel time in one day while opening me up to significantly greater risk of accidents due to the larger number of vehicles 

on the road. This has a domino effect across my trip, as the following day I am forced to drive through Sacramento’s rush hour. 

The third day is my delivery day, and I am now making these deliveries 3 to 6 hours later than they were under the prior regulations. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

82 

While I do not generally drive coast-to-coast, if I did, I would feel 

the impact of another aspect of the rule change. The 1 AM to 5 AM 

period is based upon the time at the trucker’s home terminal and 

not in the area they are currently operating. Calling the West 

Coast home, this means that were I to work on the East Coast, my 

restart periods would need to include two consecutive periods between 4 AM and 8 AM, and a driver based on the East Coast would 

need to include two periods between 10 PM and 2 AM when they 

are on the West Coast. 

Limiting restarts to once every seven days. - The new provision requiring 168 hours or seven days to have passed before I can 

take a 34-hour restart has not made me any safer or less fatigued. 

It has, however, had a dramatic effect on my productivity and has 

forced me to stay on the road more and away from home. After I 

have had 70 hours of total on-duty time within a eight day period. 

the change in the regulations requires me to sit away from home 

until the 168 hours has accumulated plus an additional 34 or more 

hours to get in the required two 1 AM to 5 AM periods. This artificial limitation on my use of the restart has caused me to take my 

34-hour restart—time that I am supposed to be getting rest—three 

hours from being at my home several times over the past 4 months. 

I think common sense will tell you a driver can get much better 

rest at home than at a noisy truck stop. 

Lost revenue. - The impact of these rules effects each trucking 

operation differently. In my business, I have experienced more 

pressure to keep moving to maintain revenue. It is easy to lose as 

much as one day a week of driving due to scheduling conflicts between HOS requirements and demands from shippers and receivers. This equates to $4,000 to $5,000 per month. The only way to 

avoid this loss is to forget about going home and maximize hours 

on the road. 

STEPS TO ADDRESS HOS INFLEXIBILITY AND TO IMPROVE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

Throughout the Department’s HOS rulemaking process, OOIDA 

has held that to meaningfully improve highway safety, any changes 

to the rules would need to include all aspects of a truckers’ workday that affect their ability to drive safety. This includes loading 

and unloading times, split sleeper berth capabilities, and the ability to interrupt the 14-hour on-duty period for needed rest periods. 

Unfortunately, the new rule misses clear opportunities to provide 

needed flexibility for truckers to address these challenges; instead, 

it goes in the opposite direction and adds additional restrictions 

that makes it more difficult for truckers to balance out the dynamic 

demands of their work day while operating safety and efficiently. 

The Department of Transportation can take important steps to 

improve the HOS rules to help truckers meet those goals of a safe 

and efficient operation. In addition to returning to the prior rule 

regarding use of the 34-hour restart, the Department could make 

the following improvements: 1) allow truckers break up their 14- 

hour on-duty window with short breaks on their terms that do not 

count against the driver’s available duty time; 2) provide the opporSBREP-219 with DISTILLER

83 

5Tanner, David, ‘‘Feds pursuing speed limiters for heavy trucks lack real-world,’’ Land Line, 

November 1, 2013. 

tunity to extend the driving window beyond 14 hours while still ensuring the driver obtains sufficient rest; and 3) return to the pre2005 split sleeper berth rule. 

Further, all of us within the trucking industry, within FMCSA, 

and most importantly within the community of shippers and receivers, need to take steps to address the detention issue. Truckers are 

professionals, and their time and their labor should be treated with 

value by their employers and their customers, because the current 

situation is having dramatic and negative safety and economic impacts for the men and women who drive our nation’s trucks and 

their families. 

Speaking of those men and women, we need to develop and enact 

long-overdue entry-level driver training requirements. Meeting this 

goal, which is the keystone of OOIDA’s Truckers for Safety agenda, 

would have countless benefits, from improving highway safety to 

addressing industry challenges, including trucking’s consistently 

high turnover rate. 

More broadly, OOIDA urges Congress and the Department to 

shift the focus of regulatory and enforcement activities back to the 

core causes of accidents. All too often, we have seen regulations 

move based on suppositions from studies of limited basis or arguments made by technology vendors or others within the industry. 

One clear example of this is the on-going effort to mandate speed 

limiters on heavy-duty trucks. This effort, which was made at the 

urging of several mega motor carriers, is continuing despite the 

fact that the Department does not have real-world data showing 

that speed limiters would make a difference in highway safety.5

The current approach has resulted in costly regulations that simply continue to put added pressure on truckers with little true safety benefit. Focusing on true accident causes and steps that can be 

taken to reduce accidents would go a long way towards improving 

highway safety in a way that values the commitment of professional truckers to safe roads. 

CONCLUSION 

While the HOS rules are intended to make our highways safer 

and more productive, the results of continued micro-management of 

drivers’ time has shown a very different outcome. Almost half of 

OOIDA members responding to our recent survey feel more fatigued following the changes, nearly 80 percent have seen impacts 

to their ability to schedule loads and home time, and nearly two 

thirds of respondents have lost income, with more than half driving 

fewer miles and fewer loads. 

We at OOIDA support safety first by requiring properly trained 

truckers as the foundation of all safety programs. Once properly 

trained, make sure that the trucker has the tools needed to carry 

out this very unique task as safely and efficiently as possible, including reasonable flexibility under the HOS regulations. Rest is 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

84 

something a well-trained driver understands and knows his own 

personal needs better than any one size fits all rule ever could. 

It goes without saying that OOIDA supports the mission of removing bad actors and ending unsafe practices—our members are 

on the road and exposed to the risk that comes with that environment every single day. However, placing more and more of the responsibility and the punishment on the driver, while not holding 

accountable the motor carriers and customers who make demands 

irrespective of regulations and safety, is not the way to move forward. 

Addressing the inflexibility of the HOS regulations, including the 

new limits on the 34-hour restart as well as enabling truckers to 

pause their on-duty clock, would be a positive step forward, but 

regulations are only one set of challenges that truckers must navigate as they work to operate safety and efficiently. Demands from 

customers, keeping drivers waiting countless hours at the dock, the 

challenge of driver pay, and the pressure from motor carriers to 

keep operating are elements of the industry that all have negative 

impacts on truckers and safety. While the Department and Congress are not the best sources for solutions in all of these areas, 

they certainly deserve attention from all who are concerned about 

highway safety and the success of small business truckers. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to answering any questions. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

85 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 85 here 85596.025
86 

Chairman Hanna, Ranking Member Meng, and members of the 

House Small Business Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

speak with you today regarding concerns affecting small businesses 

arising from the FMCSA’s Hours-of-Service Rules. 

My name is Brian Evans; I am the owner of a small business 

transportation brokerage. I serve as the President, and CEO for 

L&L Freight Services located in Cabot, Arkansas, and I am a 20- 

year veteran of the transportation, freight brokerage, and supply 

chain management sectors. I come from a family owned, blue collar, small business and prior to working in the brokerage industry; 

I drove over-the-road almost 1,000,000 accident free miles. 

Additionally, I serve on the Board of Directors for the Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA). TIA represents more than 

1,400 member companies; of which 70 percent of these companies 

are small family owned businesses. 

TIA is the professional organization of the $162 billion thirdparty logistics industry. TIA is the only organization exclusively 

representing transportation intermediaries of all disciplines doing 

business in domestic and international commerce. 

Like the FMCSA, one of our primary missions is promoting safe 

practices. As an organization, TIA has sought to work with FMCSA 

to make the Hours-of-Service regulations the best possible tool for 

the Agency to improve safety for the motoring public by reducing 

truck driver fatigue. 

Freight brokers, interchangeably referred to as ‘‘transportation 

intermediaries,’’ third party logistics companies (‘‘3PLs’’), and nonasset based logistics companies, are professional businesses that 

act similarly to ‘‘travel agents’’ for freight. Freight brokers serve 

tens of thousands of US businesses and manufacturers (shippers) 

and motor carriers (carriers), bringing together the shippers’ need 

to move cargo, with the corresponding capacity and equipment offered by rail and motor carriers, or, depending on a company’s authorities, air and ocean carriers as well. 

We are an incredibly ‘‘green’’ industry, and have contributed to 

U.S. economic growth in innumerable ways. Freight broker businesses are generally growth businesses, finding new ways to serve 

our manufacturing and distributing customers every year. By 

matching capacity with available shipments, we dramatically reduce the empty miles trucks drive between shipments, saving fuel 

and adding money to the bottom lines of carriers and shippers. Our 

industry has helped lower logistics costs as a percent of GDP by 

several percentage points since deregulation. 

Transportation intermediaries are primarily, non-asset based 

companies whose expertise is providing mode and carrier neutral 

transportation arrangements for shippers with the underlying asset 

owning and operating carriers. They get to know the details of a 

shipper’s business, then tailor a package of transportation services, 

sometimes by various modes of transportation, to meet those needs. 

Transportation intermediaries bring a targets expertise to meet the 

shipper’s transportation needs. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

87 

Many shippers in recent years have streamlined their acquisition 

and distribution operations. They have reduced their in-house 

transportation departments, and have chosen to deal with only a 

few ‘‘core carriers’’ directly. Increasingly, they have contracted out 

the function of arranging transportation to intermediaries or third 

party logistics experts. Every Fortune 100 Company now has at 

least one third party logistics company (3PL) as one of its core carriers. Since the intermediary or 3PL, in turn, may have relationships with dozens, or even thousands, of underlying carriers, the 

shipper has many service options available to it from a single 

source by employing an intermediary. 

Shippers count on transportation intermediaries to arrange and 

report on the smooth and uninterrupted flow of goods from origin 

to destination. Most carriers rely upon brokers to operate as supplements to their sales force, and in some cases, their entire sales 

force. Whatever the case, brokers keep carriers’ equipment filled 

and moving. There are more than 15,000 licensed freight brokers 

in operation, and they range from small, family owned businesses 

to multi-billion dollar, publicly traded corporations. 

Unfortunately, the new HOS regulations were a solution in 

search of a problem. No one wants unsafe trucks or drivers on the 

road. There is no one with a greater interest of the security of a 

driver than his or her employer. To that end, TIA has a standing 

committee that has published and regularly updates, a carrier selection framework. TIA recommends that every broker and shipper 

have in place a written carrier selection policy for hiring carriers. 

Safety improvements by the industry under the previous hours-ofservice rules, reduced accidents, allowed the market to become 

more efficient, and allowed American business to be more competitive. 

The new rules are overly complicated, will reduce productivity, 

and have no effect on reducing accidents beyond the previous level. 

In the 24th annual State of Logistics report authored by Rosalyn 

Wilson, she estimates a loss of productivity between 2% and 10% 

for the transportation industry. This significant amount of loss of 

productivity could lead companies to expand their near shoring 

ventures into neighboring countries; thus relocating valued American transportation jobs to foreign nations. 

I have spoken with many of my carrier customers who are experiencing a major loss of productivity due to the new restart provision. This rule is resulting in around five fewer loads per week or 

a reduction of 3% in capacity for their fleets. The cost of this loss 

of efficiency is felt by the business and ultimately passed on to the 

consumer. 

We are not suggesting that increased safety be traded for increased efficiency. We are stating that safety improvement was 

achieved under the old rules, and the new rules will not result in 

dramatically increased carrier safety. According to a report disseminated by the U.S. Department of Transportation in March of 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

88 

1 U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Commercial Motor Vehicle Facts - March 2013. 2 American Transportation Research Institute. Critical Issues in the Trucking Industry - 2013. 

October 2013. 3 American Transportation Research Institute. Assessing the Impacts of the 34-Hour Restart 

Provisions. June 2013. 

2013 1, police reported commercial motor vehicle traffic crashes actually decreased 3% between the years 2009 and 2011. 

As you know, there is a pressing shortage of drivers. The new 

HOS rule will have a twofold effect. It will chase out qualified drivers and deter future motor carriers from entering the industry, because the rules limit the number of loads a carrier can handle. The 

rule will likely also require drivers to operate during peak hours 

of operations, thereby increasing congestion and reducing safety. 

The American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) recently 

released their 2013 edition of the ‘‘Critical Issues in the Trucking 

Industry.’’ The report places the new HOS regulations as this 

year’s top concern for the trucking industry. It further examines 

the 34-hour restart provision and states, ‘‘Many in the industry believe that these new HOS rules will have a negative impact of productivity. Additionally, there are concerns that the safety benefits 

that FMCSA expects these changes to generate will not materialize.’’ 2 ATRI estimates that the changes to the restart provision 

alone would cost the industry $189 million dollars, as opposed to 

the $133 million benefit projected by the FMCSA.3

The FMCSA’s concerns about driver health and safety are to be 

applauded. The new HOS rules, however, fail to demonstrate that 

further restrictions will lead to any measurable decrease in crashes 

or injuries beyond that already being achieved with the previous 

measures. TIA supports the passage of H.R. 3413, the ‘‘TRUE Safety Act.’’ TIA urges the Agency to examine the negative effects of 

the 34-hour restart provision and consider amending the rule to 

give transportation the flexibility they need to ensure safety. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee 

today on the concerns of the new HOS rules and its effects on small 

business owners whether a third-party logistics provider, motor 

carriers, or the entire supply chain. I would be happy to answer 

any questions. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

89 

Testimony of Paul P. Jovanis Ph.D. 

Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering 

Director, Transportation Operations Program 

The Larson Institute 

College of Engineering 

Pennsylvania State University 

On 

The Effect of Truck Driver Hours of Service on Crash Risk 

Before 

The House Committee on Small Business 

Contracting and Workforce Subcommittee 

November 21, 2013 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

90 

The relationship of crashes to driver hours of service 

Submitted by Paul P. Jovanis Ph.D. 

Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering 

Director, Transportation Operations Program 

Larson Transportation Institute 

Pennsylvania State University 

Summary 

Understanding the relationship between truck driver hours of 

service and crashes is a complex and challenging task. Researchers 

working in this area come from backgrounds as diverse as human 

factors, psychology, medicine and road safety. Some of the research 

in this field has been described by the term ‘‘fatigue’’, even though 

questions have been raised in the literature about the definition of 

the term fatigue itself (Haworth, et al., 1988). Others (e.g. Jovanis 

et al., 2012) have focused on studying the association of crashes to 

the duration of driving, use of rest breaks, schedule of driving over 

several days and time of day. All approaches contribute in different 

ways to our accumulation of knowledge about hours of service and 

crashes. This testimony is not an exhaustive review of this literature as there would likely be hundreds of citations. Rather this 

is an attempt to summarize the most recent work in the field, with 

a few additional references to well-cited research. 

Concerning the effect of hours of service on crashes, I offer the 

following summary: 

Hours of continuous driving - Using data supplied by carriers 

over a period of more than 20 years, there are a number of studies 

that support the basic principle that the longer one drives the 

greater the odds of a crash (e.g. Jovanis and Chang, 1989; Jovanis 

et al., 1991; Kaneko and Jovanis, 1992; Lin, et al., 1993; Lin at al., 

1994; Jovanis et al., 2011; Jovanis, et al., 2012). These eight studies estimated the effect of driving time, when controlling for other 

factors such as experience, off duty time, driving pattern over multiple days and, in one case, time of day directly. These studies are 

among the few that control for multiple factors while seeking to estimate the effect of driving time. A study using fatal truck-involved 

crashes from 1980–2002 (Campbell and Hwang, 2005) also indicated an increase in crash risk with hours driven. 

Using trucks instrumented with cameras and other vehicle-based 

sensors a series of studies have sought to connect risky driving maneuvers to hours of service. Using these measures, one study 

(Hanowski, et al., 2008) found little connection between the observed events and hours of service. A second study with more extensive data (Blanco, et al., 2011) did find an association of driving 

time with the occurrence of safety critical events (including a few 

crashes). This second study, like the first, also showed a close corSBREP-219 with DISTILLER

91 

relation with time on duty. Other studies using instrumented vehicles, physiological or other tests of fatigue for a limited number of 

drivers during regular work conditions have found little association 

of these metrics with hours driving (e.g. Wylie, et al., 1996). 

In summary, based on a series of studies using carrier-supplied 

data and one with fatal truck crashes measured over 20 years, I 

believe there is evidence that crash risk increases as driving time 

increases. 

Hours off duty - the increase is required off-duty time was implemented in 2003. Crash-based research using data from the 1980’s 

(Lin et al., 1993) indicates that drivers with more than 9 hours off 

duty have a lower crash risk when returning to work than drivers 

with 8–9 hours off-duty. This is a case where the change in regulations (increasing off-duty time from 8 to 10 hours) is consistent 

with the research. 

Time of day - the effects of time of day are particularly difficult 

to identify because trucks share the road with other traffic, which 

has marked peaks in urban areas during the morning and evening 

rush. In a study using crash data (Lin, et al., 1993), with a baseline 

of 10am to noon, crash risks were elevated in the early morning 

(4am to 6am) through to 10am; and then again elevated from 4 to 

10pm. Another study (Campbell and Hwang, 2005) found an increase in the odds of a crash from 11pm through 6am. Using fatigue tests and instrumented vehicle data (Wylie, et al., 1996), others found strong association of declines in performance and fatigue 

tests linked to time of day. Fatigue (self rated) increased more during night than day shifts in a study in Australia (Williamson et al., 

2004). Time of day is associated with crash risk; the question is 

how to address this in regulations. 

Rest breaks - Breaks are included in the hours of service rules 

for the European Union, which require 45 minutes for each 4.5 

hours of driving (Wikipedia, 20013). In 2013, the new US rule requires a 30-minute rest break after 8 hours driving. Lack of mandatory inclusion in the policy allowed researchers (Jovanis et al., 

2012) to compare drivers with break and those without. The presence of two breaks reduced crash odds by 30% in a 2012 study 

(Jovanis, et al., 2011). The benefits of rest breaks seem overwhelming. 

Cumulative driving over several days - the introduction of the 34- 

hour restart in 2003 has triggered a series of studies of the effect 

of cumulative driving both with and without a restart. 

Two laboratory studies have been recently completed that focused on the 34-hour restart. In the first study (Van Dongen and 

Belenky, 2010) subjects were split into two groups: one group 

worked a daytime schedule for 5 days, was off duty for 34 hours, 

then worked 5 more days for 14 hours per day. The second group 

had a similar schedule except the participants worked at night for 

5 days, had a 34-hour day-oriented break and then another 5 days 

of night work. The principal finding is that the day-oriented work 

group showed no decline in performance, while those with the night 

work showed a decline when they returned to work after the 34- 

hour ‘‘restart’’. These studies were enhanced in a follow-up experiSBREP-219 with DISTILLER

92 

ment in which participants were subjected to night work periods 

separated by a 58-hour ‘‘restart’’ aimed to emulate the effect of an 

additional day required from the 34-hour regulation. In this case 

drivers were compared against each other before the restart compared to after. This longer restart resulted in no performance degradation after return from the 58-hour off-duty period. 

This concludes my oral testimony; I’ll be happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

93 

Brief summary of older research: 

Federal hours of service were largely unchanged from the 1940’s 

until 2003. Since then, there have been a series of changes to those 

regulations including those implemented this year. Federally sponsored research underlying changes in the regulations were conducted in the U.S. in the early 1970’s (Harris and Mackie, 1972; 

Mackie and Miller, 1978) and during a major field study conducted 

i the 1990’s, the Driver Fatigue and Alertness Study, (Wylie, et al., 

1996). At the same time, there was research underway outside of 

federal funding (Jovanis and Chang, 1989, Chang and Jovanis, 

1990; Jovanis, et al., 1991; Kaneko and Jovanis, 1992; Lin et al., 

1993, and 1994) seeking to associate crash occurrence with driving 

hours use carrier-supplied data. 

Detailed Comments on recent studies: 

Recent crash-based analyses: 

A study was recently completed using crash data from carriers 

during 2004–05 and 2010 (Jovanis et al., 2011). The study team 

used a methodology similar to one used in many previous papers 

(e.g. Kaneko and Jovanis, 1992), which compared crashes and noncrashes using a method called case-control analysis. Over 500 

crashes and 1000 non-crashes were used in the study; all crashes 

were sufficiently severe to be reportable to FMCSA through state 

safety organizations (i.e. a person was killed or required medical 

attention or a vehicle had to be towed from the scene). Factors included in the modeling included driving time along with multiday 

driving (derived from driving schedules over a seven day period) to 

estimate crash risk. Central to the modeling is the notion of survival: a driver who has a crash in the 5th hour, for example, survives, that is successfully completed the first 4. The statistical modeling used by the team represents this survival process. Findings 

in the report and a recent paper based on the research (Jovanis et 

al., 2012) include an increase in crash risk after the 5th hour of 

driving and an increased risk when returning to work after extended (34 hours or more) off duty. This was not a test of the restart policy, but a test of crash risk immediately after return to 

work after extended time off. The risk was higher for drivers returning to a night shift compared to a day shift. Because the study 

was conducted before the currently required rest breaks the research was able to identify a reduction associated with short driving breaks from driving (typically 15 to 60 minutes) reduced crash 

risk by 20–50% depending on the number of breaks and type of operation. 

A limitation of the study was that there were only 66 observations of the 1564 total (4%) that remained in the 11th hour. As a 

result of this data loss, the estimate of crash risk in the 11th hour 

is quite large. It is interesting to note how relatively few trucks in 

the study drove into the 11th hour. Considering non-crash data 

alone, 50 of 1022 (4.9%) of trucks utilized the 11th hour. Further, 

data were limited to most cases to 7 days prior to a crash, restricting the ability to assess the effect of the 34-hour restart. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

94 

Recent naturalistic driving analyses: 

In the naturalistic method, a set of participants are observed 

while driving ‘‘naturally’’; in this case during the conduct of their 

jobs. In addition to any crashes observed, near misses and crashrelevant conflicts (events where evasive maneuvers are needed to 

avoid a crash) are tracked to assess driving performance. The vehicles are instrumented with cameras, GPS and other sensors to 

measure vehicle motion. A recent study (Hanowski, et al., 2008) 

used naturalistic driving methods to measure truck critical event 

occurrence during vehicle movement. Naturalistic driving means 

the vehicle is instrumented with a set of cameras, radar, 

accelerometers, gyroscopes and GPS (among others), to watch and 

record how people drive. The critical events observed included 

crashes, near crashes (when extreme braking or driver reaction 

avoided a collision) and crash-relevant conflicts (where an avoidance maneuver resulted in no collision). In this study, 710 of 819 

events observed were crash-relevant conflicts so these events dominated all analyses. Recording of events began when vehicle motion 

started (speed greater than zero). 

This study found little association of event risk and driving time, 

particularly between the 10th and 11th hour; rather a stronger association was found with hours worked. A follow-on study using a 

larger data set and more quantitative statistical methods (Blanco 

et al., 2011) found associations with driving time and hours 

worked. This second study also found positive safety aspects to rest 

breaks. 

One potential difficulty of this use of naturalistic studies is that 

events occurring in the first hour may be occurring in the terminal 

or marshaling areas. This is not necessarily equivalent to occurring 

on the road and may effect the assessment of driving time effects. 

The analyses largely assessed one factor at a time; there was no 

combined assessment of driving time, cumulative driving and rest 

breaks as in the crash analyses. Further, the process represented 

by the models is different. When a crash occurs, the truck driver 

does not typically continue to drive. With the naturalistic approach, 

drivers involved in near crashes and crash-relevant conflicts continue to operate. It is not known if the occurrence of one of these 

non-crash events influences subsequent driver behavior, and thus 

subsequent risks associated with driving time and hours worked. 

Lastly, there is a concern about the implied equivalence of crashes and the non-crash events. Research has shown (Wu and Jovanis, 

2012; Wu and Jovanis 2013 a, b) that the definition of near crashes 

and crash-relevant conflicts depends details of the search algorithm 

used to identify the events. Depending on the method used, some 

non-crash events may differ from the crash events they are being 

compared to. This is a potential source of error in the hours of service data used in the naturalistic studies. 

Laboratory studies of the 34-hour restart: 

The summary of findings concerning the 34-hour restart referenced two recently conducted studies at Washington State University (Van Dongen and Belenky, 2010; Van Dongen et al., 2010). 

In addition to the description of findings provided on Page 4 of this 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

95 

testimony, there are a few additional issues in need of discussion. 

One could raise a question about establishing a policy based primarily on laboratory studies of 39 individuals. However, the studies appear to have been carefully conducted and would, in my view 

pass scientific scrutiny. The positive results with the 58-hour recovery period lead to wonder if another off-duty period between 34 and 

58 would be successful. Further, it would be interesting to test 

longer work and duty periods with more extended use of the restart, both to increase the sample size of participants and to see 

better understand the changes in performance that result. 

Concluding remarks: 

I hope the testimony provided additional understanding of this 

complex topic. I place greater weight on use of crashes as a performance measure for assessing hours of service effects, primarily 

because I have worked with these data for over 25 years. In addition, the engineering profession has focused on the use of crashes 

and their outcomes (fatalities, injuries and property damage) to assess safety; this applies in research (e.g. Hauer, undated) and in 

education programs (NCHRP 667, 2010). In my view other techniques offer important insights, but crash-based studies should be 

given priority consideration. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

96 

References 

Blanco, M., R. J. Hanowski, R. L. Olson, J. F. Morgan, S. A. 

Soccolich, S.C. Wu, F. Guo, (2011), The Impact of Driving, NonDriving Work, and Rest Breaks on Driving Performance in Commercial Motor Vehicle Operations, FMCSA-RRR-11-017, 102 p. 

Campbell, K., and Hwang, H.L. (2005). Estimates of the Prevalence and Risk of Fatigue in Fatal Accidents Involving Medium and 

Heavy Trucks from the 1991–2001 TIFA Files, Center for Transportation Analysis, Oak Ridge national Laboratory, Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee, 14 pages 

Chang H.L. and P.P. Jovanis. (1990) ‘‘Formulating Accident Occurrence as a Survival Process,’’ Accident Analysis and Prevention, 

Vol. 22, No. 5, pp. 407–419. 

ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/social—provisions/driving—time/; web access on November 16, 2013 

Hanowski, R. J., R. L. Olson, J. Bocanegra, and J. S. Hickman, 

‘‘Analysis of Risk as a Function of Driving-Hour: Assessment of 

Driving-Hours 1 Through 11, FMCSA RRR-08-002, January 2008, 

80p. 

Harris, W., and Mackie, R.R. (1972) A study of the relationship 

among fatigue, hours of service, and safety of operations of truck 

and bus drivers, Final Report, BMCS RD 71–2, Washington: U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 

Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety. 

Hauer, E., Two harmful myths and a thesis, presented at Traffic 

Safety Summit, October 4–7, Kananaskis, Alberta, Canada (no year 

provided). 

Haworth, N. L., Triggs, T. J. and Grey, E. M. (1988). Driver fatigue: Concepts, measurement and accident countermeasures. Canberra: Federal Office of Road Safety. 

Jovanis, P.P., Agu ̈ ero, K.F. Wu, and V. Shankar, ‘‘Naturalistic 

Driving Event Data Analysis: Omitted Variable Bias and Multilevel Modeling Approaches’’, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2236, p. 49–57, 2011. 

Jovanis, P.P. and H.L. Chang. (1989) ‘‘Disaggregate Model of 

Highway Accident Occurrence Using Survival Theory,’’ Accident 

Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 445–458. 

Jovanis, P.P., Kaneko, T., and Lin, T. (1991) Exploratory Analysis of Motor Carrier Accident Risk and Daily Driving Pattern, 

Transportation Research Record 1322, Transportation Research 

Board, Washington, D.C., pp. 34–43. 

Jovanis, P.P., K.F. Wu, C. Chen, Effects of Hours of Service and 

Driving Patterns on Motor Carrier Crashes, Transportation Research Board, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 

2231, p 119–127, 2012 (awarded best paper of the year by the TRB 

Truck and Bus Safety Committee, 2012). 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

97 

Jovanis, P. P.; K.F. Wu; and Chen Chen, Hours of Service and 

Driver Fatigue: Driver Characteristics Research, FMCSA-RRR-11- 

018, Washington, D.C., 88p. 

Kaneko, T., and Jovanis, P.P. (1992) Multiday Driving Patterns 

and Motor Carrier Accident Risk: A Disaggregate Analysis, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 437–456. 

Lin, T.D., Jovanis, P.P., and Yang, C.Z. (1993). Modeling the Effect of Driver Service Hours on Motor Carrier Accident Risk Using 

Time Dependent Logistic Regression, Transportation Research 

Record 1407, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 

pp. 1–10 

Lin, T.D., P.P. Jovanis, and C.Z. Yang, (1994). Time of Day Models of Motor Carrier Accident Risk, Transportation Research Record 

1467, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., pp. 1–8. 

Mackie, R.R., and Miller, J.C. (1978) Effects of hours of service 

regularity of schedules, and cargo loading on truck and bus driver 

fatigue. DOT Report HS-5-01142, Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffice Safety Administration, (NTIS PB 290957). 

NCHRP 667 (2010), Model curriculum for Highway safety core 

competencies, Transportation Research Board, 12 p. 

Park, S-W, Mukherjee, A., Gross, F., and Jovanis, P.P. (2005) 

‘‘Safety Implications of Multi-day Driving Schedules for Truck Drivers: Comparison of Field Experiments and Crash Data Analysis’’, 

Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1922, pp. 167– 

174. 

Shankar, V., P.P. Jovanis, J. Aguero and F. Gross, ‘‘Analysis of 

Naturalistic Driving Data: A Prospective View on Methodological 

Paradigms’’, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 

2061, November 2008, P1–8. 

Van Dongen, H. P.A., and G. Belenky, (2010) Investigations into 

Motor carrier Practices to achieve optimal commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Performance: Phase I, FMCSA-RRR-10-005, Sleep Performance and Research Center, Washington State University, 78p. 

Van Dongen, H. P.A., M. Jackson and G. Belenky, (2010), Duration of Restart Period Needed to Recycle with Optimal Performance: Phase II, FMCSA-MC-RRR-10-062, Federal motor carrier 

Safety Administration, 59p. 

Wikipedia search: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hours—of—service; November 17, 2013. 

Williamson, A., Friswell, R., and Feyer, A.M., (2004), Fatigue and 

Performance in Heavy Truck Drivers Working Day Shift, Night 

Shift or Rotating Shifts, National Transportation Commission, 113 

p. 

Wylie, D.D., Shultz, T., Miller, J.C., Mitler, M.M., and Mackie, 

R.R. (1996) Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver fatigue and Alertness 

Study: Technical Summary, Publication FHWA-MC-97-001. FHWA, 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Wu, K.F., P. Jovanis, (2013), Screening Naturalistic Driving 

Study Data, in press, Journal of Transportation Research Board 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

98 

Wu, K.F., and P.P. Jovanis, (2013), Defining and Screening 

Crashes and Crash-Surrogate Events Using Naturalistic Driving 

Data, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Volume 61, Pages 10–22 

Wu, K.F., and P.P. Jovanis, (2012), Crashes and Crash-Surrogate 

Events: Exploratory modeling with naturalistic driving study data, 

Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 45 p 507–516. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

99 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 99 here 85596.026
100 

Statement of the Associated General Contractors of America 

to 

House Small Business Contracting and Workforce Subcommittee 

on 

Impact of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s 

(FMCSA) 

Hours of Service Regulation on Construction Industry Small 

Businesses 

The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) is the 

leading association in the construction industry representing more 

than 26,000 firms in 94 chapters throughout the United States. 

Among the association’s members are approximately 6,000 of the 

nation’s leading general contractors, more than 9300 specialty contractors, and more than 10,000 material suppliers and service providers to the construction industry. These firms are engaged in the 

construction of highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, transit, railroad, ports, buildings, factories, warehouses, shopping centers, 

water treatment plants and other public and privately owned facilities. AGC members perform construction contracts in all 50 states 

and own and operate fleets of commercial motor vehicles to carry 

out these construction contracts. AGC members are therefore directly impacted by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) Hours of Service regulations and indirectly by how 

these rules impact their suppliers. 

In 1995, Congress recognized that the FMCSA’s hours-of-service 

regulations were too restrictive on several industries, including the 

construction industry. In the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (section 345), Congress modified the regulations 

for construction industry drivers transporting construction materials and equipment to and from an active construction site within 

a 50-air-mile radius of the driver’s normal work reporting location. 

These drivers are allowed to restart the on-duty clock after an offduty period of 24 or more consecutive hours. Congress also directed 

the Secretary of Transportation to ensure that granting the construction industry exemption would be in the public interest and 

would not have a significant adverse impact on the safety of commercial motor vehicles. If at any time the Secretary determined 

that this was not the case, the Secretary could ‘‘prevent the exemption from going into effect, modify the exemption, or revoke the exemption.’’ Now, nearly eighteen years after the rules’ implementation, FMCSA has found no adverse impact from this exemption. 

Congress created the exemption from the construction industry 

in recognition of the unique circumstances faced by the industry’s 

drivers. These unique circumstances include: seasonal limits on 

when work can be done, materials that must be put in place within 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

101 

tight time limits or be lost forever, drivers spending much of their 

time not actually driving but waiting in lines to pick-up or deliver 

materials, and drivers being under constant supervision as they return continuously to the job site or the source of the materials. 

Construction industry drivers generally drive only in good weather 

conditions. No studies by FMCSA or others have concluded that 

there is a safety deficiency specific to construction workers driving 

under these rules. 

Because these factors have not changed, FMCSA’s July 1, 2013 

revisions to the HOS regulations maintain the clock reset provision 

for construction drivers. 

While AGC applauds FMCSA’s decision to maintain this exemption in the new HOS regulations, this exemption needs to be updated to address current construction industry realities by expanding its coverage. Most of the material that is being transported for 

inclusion in construction projects are natural resources such as 

sand, aggregates, gravel, cement, lime, etc. These products are extracted from the earth and therefore are available only in their natural settings. As sources of these resources are depleted, new 

sources must be located and these tend to be in more remote locations and further away from the site of the actual construction. Because locations are further away from where much of the construction is being done drivers must cover greater distances. Therefore, 

AGC recommends that the distance covered be expanded to a radius of 100 miles. 

While FMCSA’s July 1 revised HOS regulations did not change 

the construction exemption, the rules establish a new impediment 

that negatively impacts the construction industry by requiring that 

drivers take a 30-minute break during an 8 hour on duty time period. While a federal appeals court directed FMCSA to exempt 

short haul drivers from this requirement, this unfortunately did 

not resolve the issue for the construction industry. Construction 

driving often requires short haul drivers to work shifts that may 

extend beyond 12 hours of on duty service. Even though short haul, 

these drivers are still required to take the 30 minute break in 

order to legitimately fulfill their 12 hour shift. A 12 hour shift is 

often necessary because drivers delivering perishable construction 

materials, especially concrete and asphalt, will not know in advance how long it will take to complete a delivery. Every day in 

construction is different and not always predictable. Construction 

contractors must have the flexibility to deliver concrete, asphalt 

and other materials when they are needed at the project. Deliveries 

are not always on a regular schedule and delays can cause the material to be compromised. Therefore it is difficult for drivers to 

schedule this 30 minute break in a timely fashion that allows for 

delivery of the perishable material on time and also allows the 

needed flexibility. Delays in the delivery process can potentially 

cost a contractor thousands of dollars to repair or replace out of 

spec concrete or asphalt. Delays in material delivery can also impact the completion of projects such as road improvements which 

can have negative effects on both the contractor and motorists. 

While on duty for a 12 hour shift these drivers nevertheless spend 

much of their time waiting in line to pick up or deliver material 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

102 

and not driving. Unfortunately this down time does not count towards the 30 minute break requirements. AGC urges Congress to 

direct FMCSA expand the construction industry exclusion to eliminate the 30 minute rest period requirement for these drivers. 

Another reality of highway and bridge construction is that much 

of this activity involves rebuilding, expanding and in other ways 

improving existing transportation infrastructure. This requires that 

much of the work be performed under traffic, and in many cases 

heavy traffic. So as to not impact traffic flow, and to protect the 

safety of construction workers and motorists, significant amounts of 

road construction is required to be performed at night. FMCSA’s 

new HOS requirements that drivers, including construction drivers 

that operate outside the 50 air-mile-radius, can only restart the 

weekly on-duty clock following a 34-hour off duty period that includes at least two periods between 1:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. will 

have significant cost impacts on construction contractors and the 

public agencies for whom they work. It will also significantly impact the wages drivers are able to earn while their companies are 

working overnight on major infrastructure projects because it will 

limit the hours they are allowed to work. These time restrictions 

are a real problem for contractors working night shifts in compliance with contract requirements. 

AGC supports H.R. 3413, the ‘‘True Understanding of the Economy and Safety Act’’ or the ‘‘TRUE Safety Act’’, sponsored by Representatives Richard Hanna (R-NY), Michael Michaud (D-ME), and 

Tom Rice (R-SC). The bill defers implementation of the new restart 

provisions in the new truck driver hours of service regulations that 

became effective July 1, 2013, pending completion of Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) reviews of: (1) the analysis used by the 

FMCSA to justify the new rules and, (2) the MAP-21 required restart field study. AGC urges that Congress quickly approve this 

legislation. 

Thank you for consideration of this statement. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

103 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 103 here 85596.027
104 

Chairman Hanna and Representative Meng, thank you for convening this important hearing today. The federal hours of service 

rule is important to the safety of the nation’s roadways, and constitutes an equally important area of compliance for commercial 

motor vehicle operators in the transportation construction industry. 

The American Road & Transportation Builders Association 

(ARTBA) appreciates this opportunity to present our views on this 

issue. 

The more than 5,000 members of ARTBA represent the consensus voice of the U.S. transportation construction industry at the 

federal level. ARTBA’s membership includes public agencies and 

private firms and organizations that own, plan, design, supply and 

construct transportation projects throughout the country. Many of 

these are small and/or family-owned businesses. About two-thirds 

of ARTBA members are transportation construction companies of 

varying size and areas of expertise. These include prime contractors, sub-contractors and suppliers. Overall, our industry generates 

nearly $354 billion annually in U.S. economic activity and sustains 

the equivalent of 3.5 million American jobs. ARTBA’s membership 

structure also includes nearly three dozen affiliated chapters. 

ARTBA contractor-members who operate in interstate commerce 

must comply with the hours of service rule for commercial motor 

vehicle operators (49 CFR Parts 385, 386, 390, and 395). Moreover, 

many states automatically incorporate the federal hours of service 

into the state’s controlling law for intrastate commercial motor vehicle operators. 

Above all else, these contractors are committed to safety—for the 

traveling public and their own employees. They also seek to build 

transportation improvement projects with the maximum degree of 

efficiency, innovation and value to the public. 

The purpose of the hours of service rule—as administered by the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)—appears 

clear. Agency publications note that the main reason for the regulations is to ‘‘keep fatigued drivers off the public roadways.’’ The rule 

limits when, and for how long, operators may drive commercial 

motor vehicles. The limits include length of drive time and length 

of on-duty time (even though the driver may be behind the wheel 

for a small portion of that time), as well as mandated off-duty or 

rest time. Various other provisions of the rule require drivers to 

keep log books reflecting these time records. 

Throughout various FMCSA comment periods (starting in about 

2000) addressing the hours of service rule, ARTBA has argued the 

revised rule should not apply to drivers in the transportation construction industry. In implementing the latest revisions to the rule, 

FMCSA has not—to our knowledge—seriously contemplated a comprehensive exemption for this industry’s short-haul drivers. As we 

have expressed over the years in comments submitted to FMCSA 

and to the U.S. Department of Transportation, ARTBA believes the 

rationale for this exemption is strong and worthy of the agency’s 

consideration. It would relate to two major federal transportation 

policy goals: increasing efficiency in the construction of transporSBREP-219 with DISTILLER

105 

tation improvement projects, and preserving the safety of all involved. 

Transportation construction industry drivers are not long-haul 

operators who consistently spend many consecutive hours on the 

road in a given day. In most cases, they are making drives of less 

than 50 miles in radius, whether from their normal reporting location or materials plant to the construction job site. Many of our 

drivers spend substantial amounts of time off the road during the 

work day, loading and unloading materials or equipment. Others 

may be responsible for positioning a piece of mobile equipment at 

the beginning of the work day, but may not be back behind the 

wheel until day’s end, so that their daily drive time is actually 

minimal. Those who transport construction materials may spend 

substantial time in a queue to pick up or drop off those products. 

However, in the indiscriminate eyes of the hours of service rule, 

these examples of non-driving activities are still considered ‘‘onduty time’’ and can end up prohibiting industry employees from 

carrying out their driving duties past 14 hours on a lengthy work 

day. 

Generally, transportation construction industry commercial drivers do not operate in a manner that leads to concerns over fatigue 

that is the focus of the hours of service rule. Further, we are unaware of any conclusive data to demonstrate that driver fatigue 

and ancillary health issues are a significant problem in our industry. 

Moreover, transportation project owners, the driving public and 

commercial shippers are expecting more timeliness and efficiency 

in the construction of transportation improvement projects, as well 

as less disruption to traffic. Transportation construction firms will 

often work very long hours to complete these projects expeditiously, 

especially in regions of the country where seasonal weather is a 

factor. In other industries, a 14-hour window of on-duty time may 

seem more than adequate. However, as described above, in the 

transportation construction industry it can often limit the efficient 

deployment of professionals and resources on the construction job 

site, without a demonstrable increase in safety. 

Ultimately, this is an example of two areas of federal policy— 

hours of service as administered by FMCSA and accelerated transportation project delivery as promoted by other agencies at 

USDOT—that are simply in direct conflict. In recent years, the 

transportation construction industry and many public-sector transportation agencies have been eager partners in utilizing accelerated 

construction techniques to increase efficiency, maximize the safety 

of motorists and workers, and minimize the inconvenience to the 

traveling public. This often involves total closure of a bridge or 

stretch of highway so the contractor can undertake an intense effort to replace or renovate it within a very short time frame—sometimes over a single weekend. In recent years, we have seen numerous safe, swift, ingenious and high-profile examples of these techniques, acclaimed by public agencies, elected officials, the media 

and the general public alike. Similarly, natural or man-made disasters may require contractors to be extremely resourceful within 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

106 

even more challenging time frames, to repair or replace critical infrastructure assets that have been damaged. 

FHWA has used its Every Day Counts program to promote these 

types of activities. A prominent example was the Massachusetts 

Department of Transportation’s ‘‘Fast 14’’ effort during the summer 

of 2011, through which contractors replaced fourteen bridges in 

just ten (10) weekends. The public and media reaction to this innovative effort was extremely positive. 

The industry is proud to be at the cutting edge of these emerging 

techniques. The intensity of the work schedule for these contractors, whether leading up to or during the weekends in question, 

cannot be overstated—nor can the industry’s satisfaction in these 

accomplishments. However, in these circumstances, the hours of 

service rule continues to make the job more difficult by limiting the 

availability of certain key personnel (none of whom are long-haul 

truck drivers) to discharge job duties relating to commercial motor 

vehicles. The rule may also disrupt the timely delivery of materials 

to the construction site. For these reasons, the rule may increase 

the project’s cost (in terms of additional personnel required) without accompanying safety benefits for all concerned. 

The revised hours of service rule includes a restart provision for 

drivers requiring two consecutive nights off duty from 1:00 am to 

5:00 am following a work week. The new rule also limits this restart of the clock that tracks a driver’s duty time to only once in 

a given seven-day period. In justifying this requirement, FMCSA 

cites research regarding fatigue, night-time sleep patterns and 

long-haul drivers. Again, however, the relevancy to short-haul 

transportation construction industry drivers is questionable. While 

short-haul construction-related drivers can utilize a 24-hour restart 

under certain conditions, this new mandate will still affect many 

drivers servicing transportation improvement projects. Importantly, 

much of this work is done at night, so this new provision has the 

potential to disrupt the efficiency of those construction operations 

and materials deliveries. 

For this reason, ARTBA applauds Chairman Hanna and his bipartisan co-sponsors for recently introducing the True Understanding of the Economy and Safety (‘‘TRUE Safety’’) Act (H.R. 

3413), which would defer further implementation of the new restart 

mandate until the completion and review of related research. 

In looking at the hours of service rule as it currently stands, 

ARTBA is also concerned about the ability of smaller construction 

firms to participate in transportation construction projects. We 

know this committee has an acute interest in identifying overreaching regulations and their effect on small firms. If the hours 

of service rule limits deployment of industry drivers at certain 

times, then the effect on smaller construction companies and subcontractors is even more pronounced because they do not necessarily have the resources or personnel to absorb these disruptions. It is unfortunate, then, that conflicting federal policies may 

limit the ability of small businesses to play a needed role in accelerated and innovative transportation construction activities. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

107 

Given all of these reasons, ARTBA reiterates its desire for a full 

exemption relating to the drive-time and on-duty limits for transportation construction industry drivers. Any standard tailored for 

the transportation construction industry should be based on clear 

facts that establish the degree to which—if at all—fatigue for these 

drivers is a factor that could lead to an increase in deaths and injuries on the nation’s roadways. 

It should be noted that many other classes of industries are exempt from the general rule, or enjoy certain exceptions. As one example of which we are always reminded in mid-summer, FMCSA 

exempts members of the American Pyrotechnics Association from 

the rule so they can transport explosives for Fourth of July fireworks shows. One would think that, as a national public policy 

goal, the improved efficiency in the delivery of transportation improvement projects would rank at least as high as the successful 

staging of holiday fireworks displays. 

Other partial or full exemptions apply to: 

• Agricultural drivers during planting or harvesting season 

• Vehicles operated by the federal, state or local government 

• Drivers for movie and television productions 

• Oilfield operations drivers (through which waiting time at 

a natural gas or oil well site does not count as on-duty time) 

• Drivers transporting propane heating fuel during the winter 

• Railroad signal employees 

• Retail store deliveries 

• Utility service vehicles 

A transportation construction industry exemption could be fashioned in a similar manner to those affecting other specific industries, as described. Moreover, the existing rule includes a 24-hour 

restart provision (as opposed to 34 hours under the general rule) 

for commercial motor vehicle drivers of construction materials and 

equipment. So the rule already contemplates a unique place for our 

industry and it would be possible to carefully craft a wider, viable 

exemption in a similar vein. Such an exemption could address drive 

time and on-duty limits for the unique aspects of our sector while 

preserving safety. Like the rule for oilfield operations, transportation construction supplier drivers waiting in a ‘‘queue’’ should not 

be considered on duty, nor should the time for workers who drive 

a commercial vehicle or construction equipment only incidentally to 

their main duties on a construction project. 

ARTBA and its members continue to be concerned about the 

wholesale application of the hours of service rule to the transportation construction industry. Contractors make every effort to comply, but often to the detriment of efficiency in the project’s time and 

cost. Treating short-haul transportation construction industry drivers the same as long-haul commercial truckers defies common 

sense. Correcting this misapplication of federal requirements is the 

type of regulatory reform that all sides claim to support. ARTBA 

stands ready to work with Congress, FMCSA and other transportation agencies in this important effort. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

108 

Thank you for this opportunity to offer the views of ARTBA’s 

members and the transportation construction industry. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

109 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 109 here 85596.028
110 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 110 here 85596.029
111 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 111 here 85596.030
112 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 112 here 85596.031
113 

November 20, 2013 

The Honorable Richard Hanna, Chairman 

The Honorable Grace Meng, Ranking Member 

Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on 

Contracting and Workforce 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Hanna and Ranking Member Meng: 

As family members who have lost loved ones in preventable 

crashes involving truck driver fatigue and as representatives of organizations working for twenty years to improve truck safety we 

are writing to provide the following information regarding the safety issues related to the Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on Contracting and Workforce’s hearing, WRONG WAY: 

The Impact of FMCSA’s Hours of Service Regulation on Small 

Business. We respectfully ask that this letter be submitted to the 

hearing record since our request to testify on this important safety 

issue was denied. 

Our organizations have a long history of involvement and a detailed understanding of the troubled hours of service (HOS) regulation adopted by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). This 

letter is intended to provide the Subcommittee with factual information regarding the controversial 34-hour restart provision, and 

the amendments to the restart that were adopted by U.S. DOT in 

the 2011 HOS final rule. Despite assertions that the current HOS 

rule is not working well or is inefficient, the HOS rule changes 

adopted in 2011 were calculated to reduce truck driver fatigue, 

which remains a serious safety problem for truck drivers as well 

as the motoring public on our highways. In part due to the adoption of the restart in 2004, allowing an insufficient 34 hours of rest 

between weekly driving tours of as long as 80 or more hours, studies have found that a substantial percentage of truck drivers admit 

to high levels of fatigued driving and actually falling asleep behind 

the wheel. 

Just last week the U.S. DOT released 2012 fatality figures showing an increase in deaths and injuries last year. For the third consecutive year, truck crash fatalities increased, representing a 16 

percent increase in crash deaths since 2009, and including a 9 percent increase in fatalities to large truck occupants compared to 

2011. Truck driving remains one of the most dangerous occupations 

in the United States today and fatigue is a major safety problem. 

Reliable estimates indicate that fatigue is a factor in at least 13 

percent and as many as 31 percent of large truck crashes.1 The excessively long driving and working hours allowed have led many to 

refer to truck driving as ‘‘sweatshops on wheels.’’ The restart provision adopted by the FMCSA is a modest but important improvement. Efforts to repeal this provision will only contribute to truck 

driver fatigue and crashes that result in needless deaths and injuries. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

114 

Background 

Driver fatigue has been a major safety concern under the HOS 

rules since they were first adopted in 1937. Even though that rule 

limited drivers to just 10 consecutive hours of driving without a 

rest break, and did not permit a ‘‘reset’’ or ‘‘restart’’ during the 

week, driver fatigue and driving while tired were recognized as serious safety problems that led to countless fatal and injury crashes. 

The 1995 National Truck and Bus Safety Summit, sponsored by 

the U.S. DOT, convened experts and stakeholders to discuss all aspects of truck operations and safety issues. The participants, including truck drivers, representatives of motor carriers, researchers, members of the safety community, victims and survivors of 

truck crashes and government officials, concluded that driver fatigue was the number one safety problem in the trucking industry. 

That same year, Congress enacted section 408 of the Interstate 

Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA) which required 

DOT to deal with fatigue-related issues and adopt necessary ‘‘countermeasures for reducing fatigue-related incidents and increasing 

driver alertness[].’’ 2

Despite the congressional directive to reduce fatigue and improve 

driver alertness, in 2003 the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), the U.S. DOT modal administration with jurisdiction over HOS regulation, adopted a final rule that increased the 

maximum limit on consecutive driving from 10 to 11 hours and, for 

the first time, instituted the experimental 34-hour restart that effectively reduces the end-of-week rest and recovery period for drivers who use up their weekly driving hours before the end of the 

week. Both of these changes to the original rule exacerbate driver 

fatigue, but the 34-hour restart adds to weekly cumulative fatigue, 

or sleep debt, that drivers suffer from when driving on short sleep 

from shift-to-shift and from week-to-week. 

The danger posed by the 34-hour restart is that it undermines 

what was previously a hard number weekly driving cap of 60-hours 

for drivers on a 7-day schedule, or 70 hours for drivers on an 8- 

day schedule. Instead, the restart permits drivers to reset their accumulated weekly driving hours to zero and start a ‘‘new’’ driving 

week, at any point during the work week they choose, after taking 

only 34 hours off-duty. This permits drivers who use the restart 

provision to cram an extra 17 hours of driving into a 7-day schedule, actually operating their trucks for up to a total of 77 hours in 

seven calendar days instead of the stated limit of 60 hours. Drivers 

operating on an 8-day schedule can drive an extra 18 hours in 8 

days for a total of up to 88 driving hours instead of the legal limit 

of 70-hours. While short 34-hour restart permits drivers to drive 

these extremely long tours of duty and to work over 80 hours per 

week, the short restart limits a driver to just 24 additional hours 

off-duty in which the driver is expected to get enough rest to overcome built-up cumulative fatigue. These hours of working and driving, week after week, month after month, are dangerous and deadly compared to the typical 40 hour work-week of the average American. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

115 

As a result, the 34-hour restart is often used to truncate the extended off-duty time that long-haul drivers need to recover from 

their weekly work cycle. The repeated use of the restart permits 

truckers to drive and work excessive hours and to get insufficient 

time off duty to compensate for the build-up of cumulative driver 

fatigue. Instead of having a full weekend of 48 to 72 hours off-duty 

for rest and recovery, as was required under the previous HOS 

rule,3 the 34-hour restart permits drivers to trade rest time for 

extra driving hours in order to accommodate freight scheduling at 

the cost of driver health and safety. Fewer hours of rest and more 

hours of driving and work dramatically increase truck driver crash 

risk exposure. 

In a 2004 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit rules against the agency because it found that 

the 2003 HOS final rule contradicted both the scientific evidence 

and research regarding fatigue, and the agency’s own findings of 

fact, and because the agency neglected to analyze the effect of the 

rule on driver health.4 The Court ruled that, by ignoring the mandatory issue of driver health, the HOS final rule violated federal 

law and had to be vacated. The Court went on to state that there 

were serious problems with the agency’s rationale for failing to address the inherent problem of cumulative fatigue in allowing drivers to take as few as 34 hours off-duty to rest between weekly driving tours of duty. The Court stated that ‘‘the agency’s failure to address [the increase in the number of weekly driving hours] . . . 

makes this aspect of the rule’s rationality questionable.’’ 5

After the 2003 HOS rule was adopted, larger numbers of truck 

drivers admitted to driving while tired and to falling asleep at the 

wheel. Nearly 48 percent of drivers admitted that they had fallen 

asleep while driving in the previous year. About 45 percent of the 

drivers said they sometimes or often had trouble staying awake 

while driving and about 13 percent reported that they often or 

sometimes fell asleep while driving. Nearly two-thirds of drivers, 

65 percent, reported that they often or sometimes felt drowsy while 

driving. A third of the drivers reported that they became fatigued 

on a half or more of their trips.6

2011 Amendments to Improve Safety of the Restart 

In the 2011 HOS final rule, FMCSA partially addressed safety 

concerns with the restart provision in two ways. First, it limits use 

of the restart to once every 168 hours (one calendar week). Thus, 

the rule limits the number of consecutive weeks with extensive 

weekly driving hours but only for those drivers operating on a 7- 

day work schedule. These drivers, if they are pushing the schedule 

by continually alternating 11 hour driving shifts with 10-hour offduty periods, are constrained from taking the short, minimum 34- 

hour restart two weeks in a row. This means that if a driver drives 

and works as many as 70 or up to 80 hours in one week, the driver 

will be required to take more than the minimum 34 hours off duty 

in the following week. 

This requirement ensures that drivers operating at or above the 

legal limits of the HOS, and who have highly fatiguing schedules, 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

116 

will be required to take an extended period off-duty at the end of 

every other week. While not optimal from a safety standpoint, at 

least it ensures that drivers operating on a 7-day schedule who suffer from cumulative fatigue will get an extended off-duty period 

once every two weeks. While this is not sufficiently safe, which is 

why our organizations have criticized the restart provision, at least 

the 168-hour limit of the use of the restart keeps drivers from continually using the short 34-hour restart every week, week-in and 

week-out. 

The FMCSA acknowledged the need to curtail excessive driving 

and work hours in stating that ‘‘[t]he purpose of the [168-hour provision] is to limit work to no more than 70 hours a week on average. Working long daily and weekly hours on a continuing basis is 

associated with chronic fatigue, a high risk of crashes, and a number of serious chronic health conditions in drivers.’’ 7

These findings of fact were based on the agency’s review of the 

applicable scientific research and available studies. 

Second, the 2011 final rule improves safety by requiring that the 

restart rest period include two night-time rest periods between 1 

a.m. and 5 a.m. This ensures that drivers will be able to take two 

periods of off duty time in which to obtain sleep under optimal conditions (at night and in sync with the natural human circadian 

rhythm). In 2000, the FMCSA HOS notice of proposed rulemaking 

cited the scientific basis for requiring drivers to have two nights 

off-duty: 

...the research indicates that to negate the effect of accumulated weeklong sleep deprivation and restore alertness to the 

human body it is necessary to have at least two consecutive 

nights off-duty that include the periods from midnight to 6:00 

a.m. For long-haul CMV drivers, this ‘‘weekend’’ (i.e., a period 

to permit recovery from cumulative fatigue, not necessarily 

falling on a Saturday and Sunday) should be up to 56 hours 

long, but could be reduced to 32 hours as long as that period 

included two nights covering two periods from midnight to 6:00 

a.m. The research suggests that drivers may need even more 

nights off duty if they have a severe sleep deficit.8

In proposing this limitation on the HOS rule in 2010, the 

FMCSA cited work by Washington State University which identified the fact that the 34-hour restart was effective for daytime 

workers who obtained two nights of sleep but not for night workers 

who received only one night of sleep. The agency also cited other 

works which found that daytime sleep is less restorative than 

nighttime sleep and that time spent sleeping during the day is less 

restful than sleep taken at night even when the same amount of 

time is available for sleep.9 The research supporting these findings 

is based on human biology and the need for nocturnal rest. Working drivers long hours and with little and insufficient rest is unsafe 

and deleterious to the health and medical well-being of truck drivers. 

These two changes to the HOS restart requirements provide 

added safety benefits for the traveling public because they will reSBREP-219 with DISTILLER

117 

duce acute and cumulative driver fatigue and will therefore result 

in fewer truck crashes, including fatal and injury crashes. 

Sincerely, 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 118 here 85596.032
118 

Æ 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 119 here 85596.033