Opinion: Across the Great ELD Divide

By Billy Woolsey

President

Midwest Compliance Inc.

This Opinion piece appears in the June 6 print edition of Transport Topics. Click here to subscribe today.

Large and small carriers increasingly find themselves on opposite sides of a widening gulf when the topic is electronic logging devices — particularly when the issue is whether or not ELDs should be required by government mandate.

Large carriers tend to support the ELD regulation that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has proposed. Smaller carriers, however, are less than thrilled by the possibility of such a mandate, unless the devices are required only as the result of a compliance review.

A number of major industry organizations also support the electronic logging that their larger carrier members favor. Heavy hitters such as American Trucking Associations and the Truckload Carriers Association, as well as some state associations, have adopted official policies backing the proposed mandate. And even though these groups have given the U.S. Department of Transportation a list of issues they would like DOT to consider in conjunction with the ELD requirement, they say their support doesn’t depend on getting what they want.

It might seem disingenuous for our mostly conservative-leaning industry to welcome additional regulation — not to mention its cost. But the organizations supporting electronic logging insist that their motives are simply to level the proverbial playing field by ensuring industrywide compliance — and in the process get rid of bad-actor carriers that drag the industry down and skew statistics by consistently failing roadside inspections and having trucks and drivers pulled out of service.

However, the cure-or-kill approach is unfair to all the safe, reputable small carriers already doing things the right way without waiting for a government mandate. Those fleets, which often are family businesses going back decades, are the good guys who have kept their records clean by following the rules and avoiding violations but might have problems if they are forced to take on additional expense in a still-fragile economy.

As the owner of one small carrier complained to me, “Whatever happened to being innocent until proven guilty?”

That carrier is just one of thousands of small trucking companies that keep a close watch on their drivers, operate safely, keep their equipment in good shape and, of course, keep their logs strictly legal. They’re already struggling to keep their businesses growing and adding vitally important jobs to shore up the economy. They don’t need another costly government mandate.

It’s easy to see why large carriers favor the mandate. At that end of the spectrum, record-of-duty status is the one area that strikes fear in the corporate heart of large carriers facing an audit. Having e-logs eliminates many possible violations, and onboard e-logging equipment can provide management with useful information such as engine data, fuel-tax reporting and geofencing — peripheral benefits that help carriers of all sizes interested in monitoring and tracking information.

But all that information carries a price because drivers are likely to favor carriers without e-logging devices. That creates additional problems for small fleets competing for drivers in a marketplace now being reshaped by the government’s new Compliance, Safety, Accountability safety-management program.

CSA is intended to focus enforcement agencies’ limited resources on carriers — and individual drivers — whose roadside inspection history and/or crash history indicate the need for intervention. That closer look at drivers makes the best ones, if not worth their weight in gold, darned close to that. Without the e-logging mandate, smaller carriers that don’t really need ELDs could have an edge over their larger counterparts.

Used for its intended purpose — and taking the place of the justly maligned SafeStat program — CSA could be very good for trucking. And if CSA intervention indicates e-logging is needed to get a carrier back on the “light side of the Force,” by all means mandate it for those deficient carriers. But don’t punish the good guys for whom the mandated additional expense could mean shutting down.

DOT data for 2010 show a 5.3% out-of-service rate for drivers and a 20% out-of-service rate for vehicles during roadside inspections. Based on these statistics, you could argue that all carriers be enrolled in some form of mandatory, government-run, vehicle maintenance consortium. A universal e-logging requirement makes no more sense.

DOT is doing some good things, with CSA high on the list, along with the agency’s effort to come down hard on distracted drivers. Making our shared roads safer by making sure drivers aren’t steering with one hand and texting with the other is something we all can back.

But it is glaringly obvious that this is really about politics, not safety. The previous election cycle showed that Americans want smaller, more efficient government that doesn’t cripple private business with unnecessary obstacles, and that means DOT is missing the mark by a mile on this issue — not to mention fueling an incorrect but widely held belief that the agency wants to put smaller carriers out of business.

The trucking industry needs no convincing that safety is good for business. But we shouldn’t give in to something that does not return a benefit for the cost and intrusion incurred. If you are against this proposed mandate, do not accept the inevitability of its becoming law. Let your elected officials know why it is bad for small business.

Midwest Compliance Inc., Sauk Rapids, Minn., helps businesses achieve and maintain Department of Transportation regulatory compliance.