Where’s the safety benefit?

When the electronic logging device mandate took full effect in 2018, there was an exception for trucks with pre-2000 engines.

Since that time, older trucks have continued to follow the hours-of-service regulations by using paper logs.

However, several safety groups and the Truckload Carriers Association want that to change.

The Truck Safety Coalition “strongly urges” FMCSA to end the exemption for pre-2000 engines, and the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety contends that the benefits from ELDs are “obvious and substantial in lives saved, crashes prevented and economic savings.”

“Electronic logging devices should be required on as many trucks as possible, including rebuilt or remanufactured engines or glider kits that can accommodate ELD technology,” the Truckload Carriers Association wrote in its comments filed in November. “FMCSA should push for expanded ELD adoption, because it is an important tool to track compliance for the hours-of-service regulations, which were designed to improve safety.”

In September, FMCSA requested feedback from truckers about how it could improve the ELD mandate. Among the areas FMCSA asked the public to consider was whether or not the requirement should apply to pre-2000 engines. The agency accepted comments through Nov. 15.

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association said there is no evidence that ELDs have improved safety let alone any reason to end the exemption for older trucks.

“Our members have vigorously opposed the ELD mandate since its inception,” OOIDA wrote in comments signed by President Todd Spencer. “There was never sufficient research indicating the mandate would improve highway safety, and the agency still lacks data demonstrating any positive safety results since its full implementation.”

Public reaction

FMCSA received about 1,300 comments. Many of them were from truckers, echoing OOIDA’s points about the mandate not improving safety.

Full enforcement of the ELD mandate began in 2018. Since 2017, fatality crashes have risen by 14.5%.

“OOIDA notes that this proposal is largely focused on expanding an unproven ELD mandate, whether by including drivers operating currently exempted equipment or increasing the types and frequency of data recorded by the devices,” the Association wrote. “It is disappointing the agency continues to ignore the genuine concerns drivers have with the recording and monitoring of their individual activities and movements.

“Drivers remain unsure of who can access ELD information, how long it is retained, and what is done with it once compliance has been assessed. This primarily relates to manufacturers, but drivers are increasingly concerned about roadside inspections, when enforcement officers not only access but also transmit ELD records.”

Given the problems with the current mandate, OOIDA said the agency shouldn’t be considering expansion.

“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. “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.”

Others complained that the agency shouldn’t change the rules after exempting older trucks in the original mandate.

“It is too late in the game and unfair now to require owners of pre-2000 engines to be mandated to use ELDs,” Daniel Cohen wrote. “FMCSA has already made enough of a mess of the ELD regulations to try to fix it.”

One perhaps unexpected opponent of plans to require ELDs for trucks with pre-2000 engines is the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance.

“CVSA does not support expanding the regulation to include commercial motor vehicles with rebuilt or remanufactured CMV engines and/or glider kits,” the group wrote. “CVSA was and continues to be a strong supporter of the ELD requirement. While expanding the ELD requirement to include these types of vehicles would bring more vehicles under the ELD requirement and help improve hours-of-service compliance and roadway safety for those vehicles, this change would be difficult to enforce, eroding any intended safety benefit.

“It is very difficult to verify roadside whether or not a vehicle is subject to the ELD regulations based on the engine manufacture date. Expanding the ELD requirements to include these vehicles will result in confusion and inconsistencies in enforcement of the regulations.”

Self-certification

OOIDA also spoke out against FMCSA’s decision to let ELD manufacturers self-certify. The Association said that a comprehensive certification process is long overdue.

“It has become abundantly clear the decision to allow self-certification has been a major disservice to motor carriers, as faulty and ultimately noncompliant devices have been listed on the agency’s registry,” the Association wrote. “While mandating the use of ELDs, the federal government must take the necessary steps to ensure all devices listed on the registry are compliant.”

Addressing ELD malfunctions

The current regulation requires a driver to switch to paper logs when his or her ELD malfunctions. The driver is required to follow the motor carrier and ELD provider recommendations when a data diagnostic event is logged. Whenever an ELD fails to record the hours, the driver must have paper logs available for law enforcement. If the ELD malfunctions but still records the time accurately, a driver should not switch to paper logs.

FMCSA asked for feedback on whether it should amend carrier and driver responsibilities to clarify when a driver must switch to paper logs.

“The agency must work with enforcement to ensure motor carriers and drivers are not penalized when ELD failures and malfunctions beyond their control lead to inconsistencies in records,” OOIDA wrote. LL