By 2014, truck drivers will be required to use electronic log books (e-logs) under a federal mandate by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMSCA). As expected, the transition to e-logs is likely to cause both an operational and cultural shift for drivers, carriers and shippers — after all, paper-based logs have been used in the industry for years. So, why are some carriers moving forward with implementation now? The answer is simple. E-logs will be mandatory for all carriers in the future. Those that start the integration now have an opportunity to work through challenges and begin to realize the benefits of the implementation as soon as possible — for their company, drivers and customers.

E-logs automatically capture hours-of-service (HOS) data, reducing the potential for inaccuracies and risk of violations associated with manual (paper) logs, which negatively impact safety, on-time service, operational efficiencies and CSA scores, among other issues. Given the capacity shortage that the industry is now facing, carriers cannot risk lessening the pool of safe drivers and, thus, their ability to serve shippers’ freight needs. With that, the benefits of adopting e-logs today far outweigh any reason to delay, such as to defer the investment cost, or postpone the training and communication required to help drivers overcome any anxiety or fear of the unknown — emotions which often accompany the introduction of new technologies.

Yes, there will be growing pains, but through regular, ongoing education, communication and a focus on safety and superior service, carriers and their key constituents should be able to resolve any issues quickly. With early adoption, carriers can train operations staff and fleet supervisors to guide drivers and help them audit their e-logs. Drivers can spend adequate time learning how to use the new system. Plus, sales managers will have the knowledge to educate customers about the system in advance, and how shippers can contribute to a successful implementation. Shippers can assist in the process by making sure load tendering and receipt is managed efficiently, minimizing driver detention time, and by being flexible, such as allowing drivers to park on their premises overnight or providing wider windows for delivery.

The industry at large will be required to make this change by 2014. While other carriers are spending time tackling the bumps and bruises of the mandatory transition at that time, customers of carriers that are moving to e-logs now can begin to leverage process improvements gained from e-log adoption and learning to provide consistent, effective service that is ahead of the rest.

Just when you thought FMCSA could finally begin the process of putting together a final ruling on the proposed changes to truck drivers’ hours-of-service (HOS) rules, the Administration announced that it is reopening the comment period yet again. The reason they’re doing this so late in the game? Four newly discovered fatigue studies — research that largely points to a correlation between increased driving time with increased safety risks.

I know I speak for many in the trucking industry when I say that I believe these new findings, if history repeats itself, will simply provide four more opportunities to misconstrue the facts surrounding the relationship between drive time, driver fatigue and safety.

The issue at hand — the one that is hotly debated and mired in conflicting data — is whether drivers, and thus the motoring public, are safe. The answer to that question is unequivocally, yes. In fact, in 2009 the trucking industry enjoyed its safest year on record since 1975. That means we experienced our best year in more than three decades, including four years with the current 11-hour drive time in place. What matters, and what our commitment to safety has yielded, is a dramatically decreased truck-involved fatality rate. In early April, the Federal Highway Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration stated that this rate decreased by 14.1 percent between 2008 and 2009, alone. This speaks to our resolve to keep our drivers and the motoring public safe — through programs, training and the establishment of corporate cultures built on safety — without sacrificing what we need as a country to keep our economy moving.

With just weeks to go until the final ruling must be made on July 26, we remain vigilant in our stance that the current rule is not broken and should not be changed. And though we now have more information to digest in less time, we will do so thoroughly and with the expectation that the true facts will rise to the surface of this debate and put it to rest.

Source: Groundhog.org

Most of us probably remember Bill Murray as weatherman Phil Connors in the 1993 movie “Groundhog Day.” In the movie, Phil finds himself continually waking up in Punxsutawney, PA, trapped in the same rewind of Groundhog Day he experienced the day before, and the day before that.

Today, the trucking industry is trapped in its own version of Groundhog Day.  In our case, it’s yet another round of rulemaking over Hours of Service (HOS) regulations that govern how long a truck driver can be on duty.

As background, HOS regulations were basically unchanged for 60 years until 2003 when new rules were issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).  Almost immediately, an opposition coalition emerged comprised of The Truck Safety Coalition, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Public Citizen and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. This coalition was determined to fight the new rules, suing not once but three times.

In 2004, the court vacated the HOS rule on the grounds that the government did not adequately consider the effects of longer driving hours on individual truck driver health and traffic safety.  In 2007, the same rule was reissued by the FMCSA, was again challenged in court and again vacated.

In this latest instance, the rule was overturned because the agency did not let the public examine and comment on the new crash risk analysis used to support reissuing the same exact rule.  And then just a few weeks ago, DOT agreed to have FMCSA do another round of HOS rulemaking.  As a result, the opposition coalition asked the court to “press the pause button,” and hold the coalition’s most recent lawsuit in abeyance (the court agreed). Under the agreement, FMCSA must begin a new rulemaking process and submit a notice of proposed rulemaking to the Office of Management and Budget within nine months and publish a final rule within 21 months.

Much like Groundhog Day, this continuous litigation and rulemaking merry-go-round virtually guarantees another challenge.  If the opposition coalition does not agree with the new rule, they will simply resume their current court challenge. If the trucking industry feels harmed, it will likely go to the courts with a challenge of its own.  Either way, get ready for round four.

What is obscured by this debate (as is often the case) are the facts.  Under existing HOS rules (which have now been in effect for five years), the rate of fatalities resulting from large truck crashes is at a record low level, even as vehicle miles traveled has increased.  It’s an inconvenient truth for the opposition coalition.   One can expect they would argue that the results would be even better under rules they prefer.  But that’s just speculation at this point.

One point of total agreement is that there is no more important job for FMCSA (and for the trucking industry) than safety.  The means of achieving that vision varies and requires informed debate, not just emotionally charged rhetoric.   In the view of the HOS petitioners, there is no cost too high.  At the same time, many in the industry feel the current rules are working and achieving desired safety results. So despite the best efforts of FMCSA and DOT to balance differing views, it seems we have not seen the last HOS Groundhog Day.

RMAH4GMD63SM