FMCSA PROPOSES MANDATORY ELECTRONIC LOGGING DEVICES.
April 2014, TruckingInfo.com – Feature
By Oliver Patton
After 28 years of proposals, studies, drafts, revisions, legal battles and technological innovations – not to mention an Act of Congress – federal regulators are close to requiring most interstate commercial drivers to keep track of their work hours with an electronic device.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s proposed electronic log mandate, published last month, addresses a broad range of issues but still must go through a comment period and faces possible legal challenges before it becomes final.
At the core of the 256-page proposal is the requirement that interstate drivers who fill out paper logs must eventually switch to electronic logs.
It also covers technical standards for the electronic logging devices, as they are now termed (or ELDs) and the supporting documents regulators need to confirm compliance. And it sets requirements to ensure that electronic logs are not used to harass drivers.
The agency will take comments on the proposal until about mid-May. After it reviews the comments and publishes a final rule, perhaps later this year, carriers will have two years to comply. Carriers that already have recording devices that meet current specifications would have an additional two years to bring their devices into compliance with the new specifications.
It remains to be seen how the various constituents will react.
While larger trucking companies generally support ELDs, they may have concerns about some of the technical details, the supporting documents requirements or the agency’s approach to grandfathering devices already in use.
Owner-operators have long opposed ELDs and may not be satisfied by the agency’s approach to harassment prevention.
The rule will apply to drivers who have to prepare paper logs. Drivers who don’t have to prepare logs may use the electronic devices but won’t have to. Drivers who use timecards will not have to use the devices. And drivers who use logs intermittently can stick with paper logs unless they use them more than eight days in 30 days.
Device details
The technical specifications spell out how ELDs should work.
The basic requirement is that the device record specific information – date, time, location, engine hours, mileage and driver, vehicle and carrier identification – and make it available to inspectors.
The driver must be identified by his full license number and the state where his license is issued.
The device has to be synchronized with the engine to record on/off status, the truck’s motion, mileage and engine hours.
The device will have to automatically record a driver’s change of duty and hourly status while the truck is moving. It also must track engine on/off, and the beginning and end of personal use or yard moves.
The agency is proposing that the devices use automatic positioning services: either the satellite-based Global Positioning System, land-based systems, or both.
Many carriers now have onboard information systems that warn the driver when he’s approaching his hourly limits, but the agency is not requiring that capability in its proposal.
The devices won’t have to print out the log, but may have that feature as an option. They will have to produce a graph grid of a driver’s daily duty status, either on a digital display unit or on a printout. This is the first time the agency has proposed using a printer, and it’s looking for comments on the costs and benefits of that approach.
The primary communications methods will be wireless web services, Bluetooth 2.1 or email. The backup will be wired USB 2.0 or scannable Quick Response code.
FMCSA is working with its state enforcement partners on a software system, eRODS, that will be the platform for transmitting and viewing the log data.
These requirements will be of particular interest to the enforcement community, which has expressed concern about how roadside inspectors will get access to the logs.
To guard against tampering, the device must not allow changes in original information about the driver’s records or in the source data streams that provide the information. It also must be able to check the integrity of the information.
Also, the device must be able to monitor and record compliance for malfunctions and inconsistencies.
The agency is proposing that the devices be certified by the manufacturer, and that certified devices be registered on the FMCSA website to make it easier for carriers to shop.
Harassment and more
The agency projects net annual benefits of about $454 million, based on an average annual cost of about $495 per truck for the device and services. It based its calculations on Omnitracs’ MCP50 system, describing it as an appropriate example of the current state-of-the-art device, although it looked at other products as well.
Among the benefits are reduced paperwork costs for carriers – no more paper logs – as well as 1,425 fewer truck crashes and 20 fewer fatalities a year due to fatigue prevention, the agency said.
The supporting documents portion of the proposal eliminates the requirement that carriers keep paper that verifies driving time, since the electronic log takes care of that. It retains the requirement that carriers keep a variety of documents, ranging from bills of lading, dispatch records, expense receipts or payroll records.
The agency would prohibit carriers from using ELD information to harass drivers, and is proposing procedural and technical provisions to protect drivers from harassment.
For instance, the device must have a mute or low-volume capability so the carrier can’t interrupt a driver when he’s in the sleeper berth. And the driver would have to approve any changes the carrier makes in his data.
The agency plans to propose another rule to protect drivers from coercion by carriers, shippers, receivers or transportation intermediaries. This proposal, which is awaiting clearance at the White House Office of Management and Budget, will include ways for drivers to report coercion as well as penalties for violators.
Many trucking companies support electronic logging, and early reaction from the American Trucking Associations was generally positive.
“ATA supports FMCSA’s efforts to mandate these devices in commercial vehicles as a way to improve safety and compliance in the trucking industry and to level the playing field with thousands for fleets that have already voluntarily moved to this technology,” said President and CEO Bill Graves in a statement.
ATA Executive Vice President Dave Osiecki said he’s particularly pleased that the agency is proposing to allow paper printouts of logs, but not requiring their use.
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, which has long opposed ELDs, is taking a more cautious stance.
“The agency must address the serious safety issue of how (ELDs) are used to harass and coerce truck drivers into continuing to drive regardless of driving conditions,” said spokesperson Norita Taylor in a statement.
The group also is worried about some of the technical details and whether or not ELDs will improve safety, Taylor said.
“This is the first stage in the regulatory process for the agency’s latest attempt to craft a rule on this topic, and OOIDA and small business truckers will certainly be weighing in and providing comments,” she said.
Dear Direct Response Letter Subscriber:
When the Winter Olympics were on, my wife watched it devotedly.
But she also did social media and e-mail on her laptop at the
same time.
“You’re going to miss the performance,” I said while figure
skating was on.
“I can multitask,” she said proudly.
A minute later a skater did a spectacular triple Lutz, but Amy
missed it because she was looking at her computer screen and not
at the TV screen.
This is yet another demonstration that multitasking is a bad
idea and usually doesn’t work.
A few times I wrote something on the PC while simultaneously
talking on the phone.
Invariably, my concentration on the phone call waned, and
before I knew it, I missed what the person was saying, which was
uncomfortable and potentially embarrassing.
People who multitask think they are getting more done, but a
growing body of psychology research indicates this is not true.
In particular, a 2001 study conducted by Joshua Rubinstein,
Jeffrey Evans, and David Meyer found that multitasking reduces
productivity as much as 40%.
The only multitasking that really works is when you do two
activities at the same time and both are not demanding – for
instance, mowing the lawn while listening to an educational
lecture on your iPod.
I don’t actually do that because I do not mow the lawn or own an
iPod. But you get the idea.
I know a lot of subscribers will write to tell me that they are
successful multitaskers. But unless you have measured your
productivity and quality on a task (e.g., writing) with and
without multitasking, I would argue that you don’t know whether
it serves you well.
As a youngster fresh out of college, I drove from the plant at
Westinghouse into Baltimore to take marketing classes at Johns
Hopkins.
I multitasked way back then when, in bumper-to-bumper traffic,
I foolishly opened my textbook on my lap and read while driving.
Result: several narrowly avoided fender benders and minimal
retention of read material.
I am much more of a fan of sequential tasking: doing one
project, and then when you tire of it, switching to something
else.
I saw the rudest form of multitasking recently when I attended a
lecture: many people in the audience were pecking away at their
smart phone screens as the speaker talked.
This is discourteous as well as disconcerting to the speaker if
he sees it. If you don’t want to listen to the lecture, don’t
attend. Otherwise, eyes on the stage and phone in your pocket.
Sincerely,
Bob Bly
P.S. While I wrote this essay, I did absolutely nothing else. I
mono-task while writing, which means while I write, that’s all I
am doing. Result: 83 published books and counting. And remember,
I write books on the side; my main job is copywriting.
Bob Bly
Copywriter / Consultant
31 Cheyenne Dr.
Montville, NJ 07045
Phone 973-263-0562
Fax 973-263-0613
www.bly.com
I welcome your feedback! Did you like today’s message?
What other topics would you like to see covered in my e-mails?
Please let me know at: rwbly@bly.com
DataQs, the online system for correcting CSA scoring, has the reputation of being cumbersome and unpredictable, but there’s a way for safety managers to get what they need from it.
Call it the ABCs of DataQs.
• Act quickly and consistently to fix incorrect information.
• Be specific and factual when you present your case for the fix.
• Contact the DataQs liaison in the states and establish a relationship.
A trio of experts laid out these fundamentals in a recent DataQs webinar hosted by the Truckload Carriers Association. On hand were Ron Cordova, a retired New Mexico Motor Transportation Police officer; Allan Hicks, vice president of safety, compliance and human resources for B.R. Williams Trucking, and Steve Bryan, CEO of Vigillo, the CSA service provider.
Act Quickly
Cordova and Hicks made the case for quick, consistent action to correct mistakes in CSA data.
Cordova counseled safety managers to move on a mistake within a week – “So it’s fresh on the mind of the inspector and he can move quickly.”
Hicks, providing the carrier perspective, said he reviews his company’s data every day. He goes to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s Compass Portal, which with a single password and ID gives him access to a variety of federal truck safety databases, including DataQs.
A quick survey of the carriers attending the webinar indicated that close to 60% check their roadside inspection reports every day, and more than 30% do it at least once a week.
“It’s important that you get the process started as soon as possible,” Hicks said. If there are questions, he starts with the driver, and does not hesitate to call in his CSA service provider.
Be Specific and Factual
It is equally important that the request for a correction be factual and succinct.
“Homework is key,” said Cordova. Be sure to look up the applicable federal regulation, he said.
“Get the information from the regulations into the DataQs request to help the reviewer understand what the regulation says and what you are challenging.”
And don’t be distracted by unrelated information. “Do not attempt to provide a long dissertation concerning a violation.”
For example, if you are challenging a finding that the driver’s log is not current, explain exactly why the log was written the way it was, and why it is correct. It might help to have the driver photograph the log with his phone and email the photo so it can be part of the DataQs submission.
And think of the process in a strategic way. When state officials see that a particular officer is repeatedly being challenged on the same issue, it gives them a data trail that can guide improvements.
“You help us, we help you,” Cordova said.
It helps, for example, to understand how an inspector works. Suppose a driver is cited for having a cut in a brake service line, and for inoperative pushrods in the brakes.
It is normal for the inspector to flag the pushrods because they were not working, but clearly the cut line is the source of the problem.
“It’s worth a (DataQs) challenge,” Cordova said, “because if the line were not cut the brakes would be operative.”
Hicks said there’s an additional benefit from frequently checking your data through the Compass Portal: it gets your drivers’ attention when they realize you are keeping close tabs.
The flip side is that this can help with driver retention, he said. Fixing a CSA error through DataQs tells the driver that the company is paying attention on his behalf.
“It gives him a reason to stay,” he said. Plus, it gives the company feedback to improve training.
One frequent DataQs complaint is that it’s difficult to get the CSA record corrected after a court has dismissed a citation.
The problem arises, Cordova said, because of the disconnect between two different types of legal proceedings. The court action is criminal, while CSA and DataQs are administrative.
It’s a tough situation for the carrier because many jurisdictions are reluctant to overturn a violation that a court has dismissed. It’s best to take the same approach you take in a regular DataQs correction: be quick, specific, concise and factual.
Contact State Officials
Steve Bryan of Vigillo added the third fundamental: that while CSA is a federal program it is administered to some extent by 50 separate entities. Most people don’t look at DataQs as a state-specific system, but that’s what it is, Bryan said.
Vigillo’s data shows that the companies that are most successful in their DataQs challenges are the ones that know how each state handles the citations.
California, Kansas and Florida, for instance, are among those that often respond positively to DataQs challenges, while New Mexico, Missouri and Michigan are less responsive.
At the same time, some states have a tendency to make the same kind of mistake, such as assigning the inspection to the wrong carrier. Oddly, the same state may be better at assigning a crash to the right carrier.
In Bryan’s experience, the solution is to contact the state and get to know the people. From his customers he hears stories of two companies having completely opposite experiences in the same state.
“Getting a personal relationship developed with state people is key,” he said.
The best way to do that? Reach out to the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, the enforcement-industry group that sets enforcement policy for North America, he said.
Cordova suggested joining CVSA as an associate member, but said in any event the group’s web site lists key state contacts.
Hicks added that he’s had success going directly to the source. His company was getting an unusual number of citations at a particular roadside inspection station, so he went there, met the personnel to learn how they were working, and got the situation turned around.
At the same time, it’s important not to waste energy where there’s little chance of success, Bryan said. If you fail to get a correction it makes sense to appeal if you have new information, but don’t pursue it just because it’s wrong.
“At the end of the day, the better strategy may be to look for other CSA points you can reduce,” he said.
Joe White
CEO-CostDown Consulting
Increasingly, trucking company owners and CEOs are establishing truck driver pay-for-performance (P4P) programs comprised of defined performance goals and bonus pay when goals are met.
However, P4P is part, and only part, of a bigger program called ‘performance management’ and truck drivers are part, and only part, of a trucking company’s total employees. When a performance management program (PMP) is incomplete in terms of content, employee scope or both; a trucking company has a much greater chance of failure.
The four cornerstones of a successful PMP are:
• Value-focused Job Descriptions
• Performance Goals
• Financial Rewards based on Goal Achievement
• Best Activities Training
Since truck driver pay-for-performance has received most of the recent press, we’ll instead explore the profitability opportunity trucking companies can receive from a PMP for management personnel using a VP of Sales position as our example employee.
A traditional job description for a VP of Sales has as its main focus revenue growth (after all, the word ‘sales’ is in his/her title). But is that the best focus? Is revenue growth the greatest value opportunity of the VP of Sales position?
Consider this…
Freight networks are dynamic and full of costly inefficiencies such as empty lanes, underrated freight and frequent delays. Additionally, a network’s customer portfolio can be dangerously over weighted allowing a handful of large shippers to dictate unprofitable pricing and operating conditions. The geographic reach of the network is also important as it affects home time, hiring regions and driver productivity.
Revenue growth by itself will not fix these issues. Unfortunately, the top sales employee in many trucking companies is often not assigned specific responsibility and goals for addressing similar network cost concerns even though that position has the greatest influence with the customer base.
An effective PMP begins with developing job descriptions that clearly define the responsibilities that provide the greatest value for specific positions within the organization. Even a job title by itself can suggest (and possibly misdirect) a focus of responsibility. If our VP of Sales was instead titled VP of Network Optimization and assigned responsibility for addressing specific network issues and revenue growth, might not he/she add more value?
Our retitled VP of Network Optimization’s revised job description and performance goals could include eliminating deadhead miles (sales for empty lanes), reducing driver detention, improving customer balance, increasing revenue, etc… Once value-based job descriptions and responsibilities are defined, the trucking company owner or CEO would then assign performance targets for those responsibilities and define the pay-for-performance bonus opportunity.
The final cornerstone of an effective PMP is ‘best activities’. A common industry example can be found on the driver side where many trucking companies have no idling policies and teach fuel-sipping driving techniques to support MPG goals.
A best activities example for our VP of Network Optimization might include working with the finance department to identify costliest detention points and developing cost summary business cases to bring to the customers. Another example could be securing Driver Manager approval before bidding on new traffic lanes to ensure network fit.
The goal of a PMP is to provide significant bottom line opportunity by narrowing the performance gap between current and optimal employee performance. This is just as important for the executive group as it is for truck drivers. By redirecting a department head’s responsibilities to increase the value he/she adds to the bottom line you are in effect redirecting the efforts of all the employees assigned to that executive. That provides a powerful opportunity for improved profitability.
PMPs should be developed for many middle managers also; especially those that have a significant influence on cost and profitability. The terminal manager and driver manager employee groups are of particular importance due to their influence on driver performance. Any employee that manages 20 – 50 drivers and makes literally hundreds of decisions a week that impact variable costs and profitability should be on a well-designed performance management program.
A PMP that lacks content will lack results. You can establish a 2,300 miles/week performance goal for drivers and offer quarterly bonuses when met but without driver training and coaching on how to improve productivity (best practices), results will fall short of expectations.
Likewise, a PMP that lacks employee scope will also lack results. Truck drivers may have very specific performance goals but if driver managers are not provided their own PMP with goals and financial incentives aligned with driver performance success, results will fall short of expectations.
Perhaps the most fundamental success factor of any organization is that the higher the employee performance, the more likely it is that the company will succeed. This holds true regardless of the size or type of an operation. Trucking companies that place serious effort into optimizing employee performance through use of a well-designed performance management program will be the most likely to succeed. Those that don’t – won’t.
About CostDown Consulting:
CostDown Consulting provides trucking companies with performance management, driver retention, driver manager training and operations audit services.
To learn more about CostDown Consulting:
Website: CostDown Consulting (insert hyperlink: www.CostDownConsulting.com)
Our Profile: CostDown Consulting Profile (insert hyperlink: http://tiny.cc/4g3wcx)
FMCSA PROPOSES MANDATORY ELECTRONIC LOGGING DEVICES.
April 2014, TruckingInfo.com – Feature
By Oliver Patton
After 28 years of proposals, studies, drafts, revisions, legal battles and technological innovations – not to mention an Act of Congress – federal regulators are close to requiring most interstate commercial drivers to keep track of their work hours with an electronic device.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s proposed electronic log mandate, published last month, addresses a broad range of issues but still must go through a comment period and faces possible legal challenges before it becomes final.
At the core of the 256-page proposal is the requirement that interstate drivers who fill out paper logs must eventually switch to electronic logs.
It also covers technical standards for the electronic logging devices, as they are now termed (or ELDs) and the supporting documents regulators need to confirm compliance. And it sets requirements to ensure that electronic logs are not used to harass drivers.
The agency will take comments on the proposal until about mid-May. After it reviews the comments and publishes a final rule, perhaps later this year, carriers will have two years to comply. Carriers that already have recording devices that meet current specifications would have an additional two years to bring their devices into compliance with the new specifications.
It remains to be seen how the various constituents will react.
While larger trucking companies generally support ELDs, they may have concerns about some of the technical details, the supporting documents requirements or the agency’s approach to grandfathering devices already in use.
Owner-operators have long opposed ELDs and may not be satisfied by the agency’s approach to harassment prevention.
The rule will apply to drivers who have to prepare paper logs. Drivers who don’t have to prepare logs may use the electronic devices but won’t have to. Drivers who use timecards will not have to use the devices. And drivers who use logs intermittently can stick with paper logs unless they use them more than eight days in 30 days.
Device details
The technical specifications spell out how ELDs should work.
The basic requirement is that the device record specific information – date, time, location, engine hours, mileage and driver, vehicle and carrier identification – and make it available to inspectors.
The driver must be identified by his full license number and the state where his license is issued.
The device has to be synchronized with the engine to record on/off status, the truck’s motion, mileage and engine hours.
The device will have to automatically record a driver’s change of duty and hourly status while the truck is moving. It also must track engine on/off, and the beginning and end of personal use or yard moves.
The agency is proposing that the devices use automatic positioning services: either the satellite-based Global Positioning System, land-based systems, or both.
Many carriers now have onboard information systems that warn the driver when he’s approaching his hourly limits, but the agency is not requiring that capability in its proposal.
The devices won’t have to print out the log, but may have that feature as an option. They will have to produce a graph grid of a driver’s daily duty status, either on a digital display unit or on a printout. This is the first time the agency has proposed using a printer, and it’s looking for comments on the costs and benefits of that approach.
The primary communications methods will be wireless web services, Bluetooth 2.1 or email. The backup will be wired USB 2.0 or scannable Quick Response code.
FMCSA is working with its state enforcement partners on a software system, eRODS, that will be the platform for transmitting and viewing the log data.
These requirements will be of particular interest to the enforcement community, which has expressed concern about how roadside inspectors will get access to the logs.
To guard against tampering, the device must not allow changes in original information about the driver’s records or in the source data streams that provide the information. It also must be able to check the integrity of the information.
Also, the device must be able to monitor and record compliance for malfunctions and inconsistencies.
The agency is proposing that the devices be certified by the manufacturer, and that certified devices be registered on the FMCSA website to make it easier for carriers to shop.
Harassment and more
The agency projects net annual benefits of about $454 million, based on an average annual cost of about $495 per truck for the device and services. It based its calculations on Qualcomm’s MCP 50 system, describing it as an appropriate example of the current state-of-the-art device, although it looked at other products as well.
Among the benefits are reduced paperwork costs for carriers – no more paper logs – as well as 1,425 fewer truck crashes and 20 fewer fatalities a year due to fatigue prevention, the agency said.
The supporting documents portion of the proposal eliminates the requirement that carriers keep paper that verifies driving time, since the electronic log takes care of that. It retains the requirement that carriers keep a variety of documents, ranging from bills of lading, dispatch records, expense receipts or payroll records.
The agency would prohibit carriers from using ELD information to harass drivers, and is proposing procedural and technical provisions to protect drivers from harassment.
For instance, the device must have a mute or low-volume capability so the carrier can’t interrupt a driver when he’s in the sleeper berth. And the driver would have to approve any changes the carrier makes in his data.
The agency plans to propose another rule to protect drivers from coercion by carriers, shippers, receivers or transportation intermediaries. This proposal, which is awaiting clearance at the White House Office of Management and Budget, will include ways for drivers to report coercion as well as penalties for violators.
Many trucking companies support electronic logging, and early reaction from the American Trucking Associations was generally positive.
“ATA supports FMCSA’s efforts to mandate these devices in commercial vehicles as a way to improve safety and compliance in the trucking industry and to level the playing field with thousands for fleets that have already voluntarily moved to this technology,” said President and CEO Bill Graves in a statement.
ATA Executive Vice President Dave Osiecki said he’s particularly pleased that the agency is proposing to allow paper printouts of logs, but not requiring their use.
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, which has long opposed ELDs, is taking a more cautious stance.
“The agency must address the serious safety issue of how (ELDs) are used to harass and coerce truck drivers into continuing to drive regardless of driving conditions,” said spokesperson Norita Taylor in a statement.
The group also is worried about some of the technical details and whether or not ELDs will improve safety, Taylor said.
“This is the first stage in the regulatory process for the agency’s latest attempt to craft a rule on this topic, and OOIDA and small business truckers will certainly be weighing in and providing comments,” she said.
Copyright © 2014 TruckingInfo.com. All Rights Reserved.
Many of our clients contract to government entities – which means additional scrutiny from the Department of Labor. If you have drivers that fall under the Service Contract Act, you are required to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act. We have seen increased DOL audits with our clients, and more companies are using LoadTrek to create work plans and monitor compliance with established plans.
A key provision is the creation and monitoring of authorized break periods – and the rules that stipulate whether or not these breaks should be compensable.
Many employers assume that, when an employee stretches a 15-minute break to 25 minutes, the FLSA does not allow the additional 10 minutes to be treated as non-compensable time.
On the contrary, the Labor Department’s internal enforcement manual takes the position that unauthorized break extensions need not be considered work time, so long as the employer has expressly and unambiguously told employees that:
- authorized breaks may last only for a specific length of time;
- any extension of those breaks is against the rules; and
- any extension of those breaks will be punished.
Remember that many states impose rest-break rules of their own. Employers must also be aware of and comply with whatever the applicable obligations are.
For purposes of what is and is not FLSA worktime under Labor Department interpretations, it can be useful to view scheduled breaks as falling into essentially three categories:
- Meal breaks, which are typically noncompensable time
- “Short” rest breaks of “about 20 minutes” or less, which the Labor Department says are typically compensable time
- Break periods which are neither meal breaks nor “short” rest breaks, which might or might not be compensable time.
We recommend that routes are created with break times and locations built into the route. These break locations should have instructions that explain the nature and expected duration of the break.
