ELD revision proposal expected in 2025

Mark Schremmer

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration plans to revisit its ELD rule in 2025.

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Spring 2024 Unified Regulatory Agenda, FMCSA is targeting June 2025 for a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding electronic logging devices. The notice is expected to propose revisions to the agency’s existing ELD rule.

In September 2022, FMCSA requested feedback from truckers about how it can improve the ELD mandate.

FMCSA’s advance notice of proposed rulemaking considers changes to the ELD mandate in five areas:

• Applicability to pre-2000 engines
• Addressing ELD malfunctions
• The process for removing an ELD from FMCSA’s list of certified devices
• Technical specifications
• ELD certification

As part of the notice, FMCSA asked truck drivers for feedback on the original mandate’s decision to exempt trucks with pre-2000 engines.

“Should FMCSA reevaluate or modify the applicability of the current ELD regulation for rebuilt or remanufactured CMV engines or glider kits?” the agency asked.

As part of comments submitted to the agency in November 2022, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association said that there is no justification for removing the exemption.

“The agency lacks data confirming the ELD mandate has improved highway safety and has failed to demonstrate how the expansion of existing requirements to vehicles operating on pre-2000 and rebuilt pre-2000 engines would enhance safety,” the Association wrote in 2022. “OOIDA is unaware of any research that demonstrates vehicles operating under the pre-2000 exemption fail to meet the same level of safety as vehicles with ELDs.”

Individual truck drivers also spoke out against any plans to remove the ELD exemption for older trucks.

“The job of the FMCSA is to advance highway safety,” Dan Roe wrote. “When the FMCSA implemented the ELD rules, it exempted vehicles with pre-2000 engines. To my knowledge, there have not been any problems with these vehicles causing injury-related crashes. Therefore to repeal the exemption for pre-2000 engines will do nothing to advance highway safety.”

Although it remains unclear exactly what FMCSA will propose, the agency appears poised to move forward with a notice of proposed rulemaking next year.

4 Core Metrics Safety Directors Should Be Looking At Each Week

Scott Rea

You know the old saying: “You can’t manage what you don’t measure?”

As a Safety Director tasked with overseeing recruiting, compliance, and safety efforts in your company, you must use metrics to avoid wasting time and money, keep auditors and plaintiff’s attorneys out of your hair, and make sure all your drivers make it home to their families for dinner.

With so much data at your fingertips, it can be difficult to know where to start when it comes to metrics. To keep it simple, we recommend Safety Directors focus on The Core 4.

The Core 4 Metrics for Safety Directors

1: Cost Per Hire

What is it? A hire is someone who made it through the application process, showed up for their first day of work or training, and is actively on payroll. Cost per hire is the amount of money it costs your business to hire one new employee.

The simple way to calculate cost per hire is: Ad Spend / Hires = Advertising Cost Per Hire.

An even more accurate metric is All-In Cost Per Hire, which takes into account the cost of:

All salaries involved in recruiting, screening, and onboarding

MVRs, PSPs, background checks, drug screens, and any other screening tools you use

Advertising

It looks like this: Salaries + Screening Costs + Ad Spend = All-In Cost Per Hire.

Why is it important? This is the ultimate recruiting metric because it tells you how effective and efficient you are at bringing new drivers into your company. It’s a pretty simple concept: Spend the least amount possible to hit your hiring goals. Tracking cost per hire helps you measure your recruitment effectiveness and determine where to spend your dollars.

How do you track it? Advertising Cost Per Hire: Enter your ad spend by source in A-Suite each month, and it will calculate Cost Per Hire for you. It’s so important that A-Suite will email it to you each month.

How can you improve it? The first step is proper messaging. The second step is being efficient with your leads, auto-rejecting unqualified candidates, and speeding up the hiring process — see days to hire, below.

What’s the benchmark? A finger-to-the-wind benchmark for advertising cost per hire is $750, but your mileage may vary depending on the competitiveness of your market. The goal is always to drive it as low as possible. That’s why it’s so important to begin measuring it for yourself.

2: Lead-to-Hire Conversion Rate

What is it? At AvatarFleet, we consider a lead to be a candidate who submitted an initial interest form on your candidate landing page or from an external source like Indeed or Facebook. The lead-to-hire conversion rate is: Number of Hires / Number of Leads, expressed as a percentage.

Why is it important? Drivers are a revenue center for your company. The more folks you have to choose from, the better chances you have of hitting your targets. A healthy lead flow means you’re able to stay staffed up. A good lead-to-hire conversion rate means you’re attracting the right candidates and onboarding them effectively.

How can you improve it? While lead volume is important, we’re all about quality over quantity because your time is money. That’s where the conversion rate comes into play.

What’s the benchmark? Benchmark figures vary depending on your niche, location, and other factors. In terms of lead volume, around 20 leads per seat is a good rule of thumb. A baseline for the lead-to-hire conversion rate is roughly 5%. Compare your lead-to-hire percentage by source so you can monitor which advertising channels perform well for you and allocate your budget accordingly. While important, this metric is secondary to Cost Per Hire.

3: Days to Hire

What is it? Days to hire is the number of days it takes your company to hire someone after they’ve applied for the position.

Why is it important? Days to hire is important to track because speed is a major predictor of your recruiting success. A lengthy hiring process has several downsides. Drivers are judging you during the recruiting process; a long and archaic process represents what their experience will be when they join you. A slow and clunky process increases the number of candidates that ghost you. Then there are the hard costs of taking more than 30 days. You will have to run additional background checks and Motor Vehicle Records requests, and you’ll have one more month of employment verification.

How can you improve it?  See where the log jam is in the hiring process, figure out what is slowing down that section of the hiring process and address the cause.

What’s the benchmark? Less than two weeks to go from lead to behind-the-wheel. Your goal should be to hire drivers as quickly as possible. There’s no reason days to hire can’t be 14 days or fewer. While candidates’ schedules don’t always align with road test schedules, if you’re measuring this in months, you’re doing something wrong.

4: Drivers in Compliance

What is it? Drivers in compliance look at whether drivers who have compliance rules assigned to them have any violations.

Why is it important? You just have to be 100% compliant. Period. As a Safety Director, you should think about how this will look if you have to go to deposition. Do you really want to stare down an attorney named “The Hammer” and tell him that you’re a safe operator even though you don’t follow federal regulations or your own safety policy?

How can you improve it? Compliance is a perfect task to automate because it’s repetitive and well-defined.

What’s the benchmark? When it comes to compliance, you must be at 100%.

Metrics Recap

We know you didn’t get into the transportation industry to crunch numbers. But as we said at the start of this article, you can’t manage what you can’t measure. Staying focused on The Core 4 will simplify your job because you’ll know what to put on the top of your to-do list. Everyone needs a number!

Future of federal regulations in wake of Supreme Court’s decisions

Tyson Fisher

While most people are talking about the U.S. Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision, the high court’s latest term included two decisions that have stripped a significant amount of power from federal agencies, dramatically reshaping the regulatory landscape.

Those two decisions were the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System cases. Loper Bright reversed 40 years of precedent – established by something called the Chevron doctrine – that gave federal agencies the power to interpret laws. Corner Post redefined a narrow six-year window to challenge federal regulations.

Individually and taken together, the Supreme Court’s rulings on the two cases have the potential to open the floodgates to new challenges to regulations that have already gone through the judicial wringer and came out victorious.

Before going into the implications of the Supreme Court’s decisions, let’s take a look at each case.

Loper Bright and the Chevron doctrine

Perhaps one of the most consequential Supreme Court decisions during the latest term came from the Loper Bright case, which erased how certain laws have been interpreted for decades.

At the center of the Loper Bright case was the Chevron doctrine. Since 1984, that precedent gave federal agencies the power to interpret ambiguous laws granting them the authority to enact regulations.

Not all regulations are the result of a detailed directive from Congress. In some cases, federal agencies enact regulations based on their interpretation of the controlling law that gives them the authority to do so. The Chevron doctrine established a two-step guide for federal courts to follow in these cases:

1. Determine if Congress directly addressed the issue at hand, and if so, whether the statute was ambiguous. If the intent is clear, the matter is resolved accordingly. If the intent is ambiguous, then go to Step 2.
2. Determine if the agency’s interpretation is permissible, i.e. rational or reasonable. If so, the court must defer to the agency’s interpretation.

In 2014, the Supreme Court upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation dealing with air pollution that crosses state lines. Although Congress never explicitly directed the EPA to address such pollution, the agency interpreted broad language within the Clean Air Act to include it. Relying on the Chevron doctrine, the high court agreed and deferred to the EPA’s interpretation of the law. Consequently, the merits of the arguments against the regulation were never heard.

Now that the Chevron doctrine has been erased, challenges to federal regulations that center on vague statutes will be decided by judges, not agencies.

A district court judge can now determine if an ambiguous law gives an agency the authority to enact a regulation.

Those who supported the Chevron doctrine claimed that agencies are the experts best equipped to decide what Congress intended. For example, the EPA hires and consults with people and entities who have expert knowledge of environmental issues. Therefore, the EPA, not some random judge, can better determine why a regulation aligns with Congress’ intent.

Additionally, the pro-Chevron voices argued that Congress sometimes writes laws that are intentionally vague. It is impossible to predict the future. Consequently, agencies are given broad authority to address certain issues and to fill in the blanks as new information develops.

On the other hand, opponents argued that federal agencies are politically motivated – i.e. the interpretations of a Democrat-led EPA will vary greatly from those of a Republican-led EPA. To mitigate this problem, impartial judges should settle regulatory disputes that are a matter of law interpretation.

Corner Post and statute of limitations

Previously, anyone harmed by a regulation had six years from when the regulation was published to challenge it. Not anymore.

According to federal law, certain challenges to federal regulations had to be “filed within six years after the right of action first accrues.” For decades, courts have interpreted this to mean the clock starts when a regulation is enacted. Plaintiffs in the Corner Post case argued it should start when a business first suffers harm from the regulation, regardless of when that occurs.

The case stemmed from a challenge to a 2011 federal regulation governing debit card swipe fees charged to merchants. Based on the statute of limitations, any challenge to that regulation had to occur before 2017. However, Corner Post, a truck stop, did not open for business until 2018. The company challenged the debit card fee regulation in 2021, arguing that the six-year clock started when it was first harmed by the rule, not when it was published.

Advocates supporting the clock starting at the time of enactment argued this gives businesses, industries and society as a whole a level of finality and certainty. By having a clear endpoint, affected parties of a regulation will know to adjust accordingly. Without a clear deadline, the certainty required for businesses to plan for the future goes out the window.

Opponents argued that the narrow time limit deprives new entities of their day in court. Furthermore, someone may not realize harm from a regulation until long after it was enacted.

The Supreme Court sided with Corner Post. Consequently, certain challenges to federal regulations now can be filed virtually whenever.

Effects of Supreme Court decisions

The above Supreme Court rulings sent shockwaves through the legal and regulatory communities, setting the stage for a “tsunami of lawsuits against agencies.”

Here is what the rulings will not do: automatically undo any regulations.

During a House Oversight Committee hearing on Wednesday, July 10, Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., grilled EPA Administrator Michael Regan about regulations passed under the Chevron doctrine. She erroneously claimed the recent Supreme Court ruling deemed those rules unconstitutional and that they therefore should be repealed.

Wrong.

However, the Supreme Court has opened the door for challenges of regulations to be resurrected. When those challenges are filed, the court will no longer automatically defer to the agency’s interpretation. Rather, a federal judge will decide if a law authorizes the regulation in question based on a litany of factors, which may include an agency’s interpretation.

Simply put: Regulations that have successfully passed the Chevron hurdle can be challenged again. This may or may not result in a different outcome. Results likely will vary. In the meantime, all existing Chevron-approved regulations are considered constitutional until a federal judge rules otherwise. Chief Justice John Roberts explicitly stated that in the majority opinion.

Due to the Corner Post decision, there could be a rush of challenges to regulations that previously were off-limits due to the six-year statute of limitations. In theory, anyone could start a business with the sole intent to start the clock on a challenge of an old rule. Again, this doesn’t guarantee a reversal, as courts may end up reaching the same conclusion – just through a different avenue.

The two Supreme Court decisions combined likely will overwhelm the federal district court dockets with fresh challenges to old rules.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned just that in her Corner Post dissent.

“At the end of a momentous term, this much is clear: The tsunami of lawsuits against agencies that the court’s holdings in this case and Loper Bright have authorized has the potential to devastate the functioning of the federal government,” Jackson wrote.

In the meantime, the Loper Bright decision may force Congress to write clearer laws. At the very least, federal agencies will need to be more careful in how they justify regulations.

In the short term, new challenges will arise. What the long-term implications will be is up in the air. Some rules may be overturned. Others may be affirmed.

The wheels of justice turn ever so slowly. It likely will be several years before the effects of the new regulatory landscape are realized.

Click on link below to see video.

https://youtu.be/_D5ZSV13U-E

(This is interesting, FMCSA stated when the ELD regulation was put into effect that CMV accidents would be reduced.  This statement was not true, but FMCSA would like to include pre-2000 engines into the ELD requirements.)

ATRI: Value of Risk and Safety Per Annual Operating Expense

SAFETY AS AN INVESTMENT

Doug Marcello

WHY IT MATTERS:  Safety protects profits, not draining it as an expense burden many erroneously believe.

WHAT’S THE PROBLEM:  Too many view safety as just an expense.  A burden.  A drain.

The folks in finance who live-and-die by the P & L statements, myopically see “safety” on the expense lines rather than what it is—an investment.

They look at money spent on safety as a hemorrhage of profits.  The result—safety expenditures are internally challenged.  They are shortsightedly cut to puff profits.

Like an owner-operator reducing maintenance during tough times.  Short term return, but a long term loss.

The reality is that reducing expenditures for effective safety programs can actually cost more off the bottom line.

I had a client with a $1 million deductible.  He would tell me that how his company did at year end depended on how I did in the courtroom.

WHAT IS THE REALITY:  Safety saves.  Lives.  Injuries.  And Money.

This is especially true in today’s world of trucking companies taking on risk to reduce the amount that their insurance will increase.  It’s their deductible.  Their “retention.”

The result is that companies pay for the first $X per accident up to the amount of their deductible.  Where does that money come from?  Off the bottom line.

Safety is an investment to prevent the incidents that drain revenue.  Prevent the “death by a thousand cuts” of the “costs of defense payments” made even when there is no fault or no injuries.

That starts with safety.  Investment in safety.  Investment in technology.  But also investment in a culture that puts safety above all else.

No compromise.  Safety compromises cost.

SUPPORTED BY STUDY:  ATRI issued its study on the issue, “The Rising Insurance Costs of the Trucking Industry.”  A key takeaway from the study is that premium is no longer the sole determination of costs. It is just the start.

Instead, the key is “Total Costs of Risk”—premium plus deductible payments plus safety investment.  And the result?

It found that, “Carriers that increased deductibles or [self-insured retention] levels as a strategy for lowering premiums successfully lowered our-of-pocket costs more often than other carriers,,,”

Eighty (80) percent of those that increased retention and deductibles decreased their MCMIS crash rates the following year.  “This counter-intuitive finding appears to result from a heightened awareness of increased liability and exposure that leads to increased safety investment.” (Emphasis added)

And how did they do it?  “As noted in the research, this likely requires a top-down emphasis on safety culture starting with the senior executives who authorize changes in coverage, deductibles and/or SIR levels.”

Further, ATRI recommends carrier evaluate all costs associated with risk, including coverage, deductibles and/or SIR levels, financial and litigation liability exposure, safety technology investments, driving hiring and training, and out-of-expenses.”

“Safety technology investments.”  That’s the perspective.

SAFETY IS “ANTI-REPTILIAN”:  Investment in safety is not just preventative.  It is also a proactive defense against a Reptilian attack.

The Reptile Theory isn’t about the accident.  Nuclear verdicts rarely, if ever, detonate because of the facts of the accident.

The Reptile lawyer preys upon “Systemic Failures”.  Things you do on a ongoing basis that can be levered to inflame the jury and explode a verdict.

Your “safety investment” deprives them of the explosive source.  The “systemic failure.”

Rather than reeling in the deposition to the Reptilian inquisition, you can respond, “I’m glad you asked that question.  Let me tell you about safety program.”

BOTTOM LINE:  Safety profits.  Rather than a drain, safety keeps money on your bottom line.  And the bottom line is, well, the bottom line.

An Overview of CSA Scores & Why They’re So Important

Drivewyze

The topic of CSA scores often dominates conversations in the trucking industry, both with for-hire and private fleets. But what are CSA scores, and why do they hold such significant weight with truck drivers and trucking companies?

In this guide, we’ll take a look at what Compliance, Safety, and Accountability (CSA) scores are and why they’re so essential by providing insights into their calculation, importance, and the best methods for improvement.

What are CSA Scores?

CSA scores are percentiles calculated through the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) Safety Measurement System (SMS) to assess a carrier’s safety performance. The scores, which are assigned to carriers based on their safety performance, are a part of the CSA program, a safety measurement initiative managed by the FMCSA.

CSA scores are essentially designed to hold truck drivers, owner-operators, and fleet operators accountable for compliance with safety regulations.

How are CSA Scores Calculated?

CSA scores are determined based on roadside inspection, traffic enforcement, and crash report data from the previous 24 months. These scores reflect multiple factors, including the number of violations and crashes attributed to the fleet, the severity of those violations and crashes, as well as the age of them. More severe events count more as do more recent events. The factors are viewed in the context of carrier size (e.g., number of trucks and miles driven).

Carriers receive a CSA score for each of the seven Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories (BASICs):

• Unsafe Driving
• Hours of Service Compliance
• Vehicle Maintenance
• Driver Fitness
• Hazmat Compliance
• Crash Indicator
• Controlled Substances and Alcohol

Below, we’ll take a deeper look into each of the seven basic categories.

Unsafe Driving

This category focuses on the operation of a commercial motor vehicle in a dangerous or careless manner. It includes dangerous practices such as speeding, texting, not wearing a seatbelt, or improper lane changes.

Crash Indicator

According to the DOT’s official SMS methodology, “this BASIC is based on information from State-reported crashes that meet reportable crash standards.” This includes crashes that result in a fatality, injury requiring treatment away from the scene, or enough vehicle damage to require towaway.

HOS Compliance

This BASIC reflects compliance with hours of service limitations (e.g., maximum driving time) and recordkeeping requirements, including the use of an electronic logging device.

Vehicle Maintenance

This BASIC measures compliance with vehicle maintenance and general condition requirements, including vehicle defects (e.g., faulty brakes, bald tires).

Controlled Substances/Alcohol

This BASIC measures compliance with drug and alcohol regulations, including prohibitions on use and employer requirements to test for misuse.

Hazardous Materials Compliance

This BASIC measures compliance with regulations relating to the safe transportation of hazardous materials, including marking, packaging, loading, and the possession of appropriate paperwork for each shipment.

Driver Fitness

This BASIC reflects compliance with regulations requiring employers to ensure drivers are “fit” to drive. In other words, drivers must meet minimum qualifications with respect to age, medical condition, and licensure.

Why Should I Care About a CSA Score?

A carrier’s CSA scores reflect its compliance with Federal safety regulations. A good score can significantly reduce the possibility of interventions, such as roadside inspections and on-site audits.

Maintaining low CSA scores comes with a lot of benefits, including:

• Fewer DOT audits and roadside inspections
• Better opportunity to bypass weigh stations
• Lower insurance rates
• Better reputation in the industry

An essential aspect of getting and keeping a good CSA score lies in hiring drivers with strong safety records. A good place to start is by looking at a potential hire’s Pre-employment Screening Program (PSP) records, which can let you know a lot about their willingness to play it safe.

What are Good and Bad CSA Scores?

Similar to an ISS score, CSA scores are calculated on a percentage scale of zero to 100. A score of 100 equals the worst possible performance, while a zero indicates the best performance (or a lack of data on which to derive a meaningful score). The FMCSA sets intervention thresholds based on crash risk analyses and professional judgment. Generally, staying far below these thresholds positively impacts the operations, profitability, and reputation of carriers and owner-operators.

How to Check Your CSA Score

CSA scores are not publicly available, but checking your scores is easy for carriers. Here are the steps:

1. Request a PIN online from the FMCSA website, by email, or via a hard copy letter in the mail.
2. Visit the CSA program website using your PIN and carrier name or DOT number.
3. View your CSA scores and underlying data that affect your score (crashes, violations, etc.).

Can You Improve Your CSA Score?

CSA scores aren’t set in stone. With persistent compliance, they can be improved by making safety and compliance a core focus of your company. In doing so, you’ll not only increase your CSA scores, but you’ll also improve your ISS scores, which makes weigh station bypass much more likely.

Drivewyze can play a significant role in helping improve your CSA score by providing real-time insights into your fleet’s safety and compliance status with tools like PreClear and Safety+.Our bypass service even records and measures safety inspection data (including violations), highlighting specific areas where your scores can be improved across an entire fleet.

FAQs About CSA Scores

Do Drivers Receive CSA Scores? 

No, drivers do not receive individual CSA scores. The scores are assigned to carriers based on their violations and crashes. That means that when an individual driver gets a violation, it negatively impacts the carrier, not the driver (other than their PSP records).

Do CSA Scores Really Matter? 

CSA scores are critical to trucking companies. They have a major influence on a carrier’s reputation, safety record, and the potential for negative interventions by FMCSA. All of those factors impact your ability to get customers and remain in operation.

What is CSA Compliance? 

CSA compliance is another way of saying “following the Federal Motor Carrier Safety regulations.” Both drivers and carriers are held accountable for violations (to varying degrees), so it’s in the best interest of all parties to prioritize low scores.

How Long Does it Take to Improve Your CSA Score? 

That can depend on various factors, including the severity and frequency of violations. If you have several recent and severe violations, it can take longer than usual to improve your score. Violations occurring in the most recent six months bear the most weight. Those more than 12 months old carry the least.

What Happens if You Receive a Violation? 

If a driver receives a violation, it is assigned to the carrier and not the individual driver. Repeated violations can negatively affect a carrier’s CSA score.