Transportation Regulatory Trends

TeamCaffee

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
I found this to be interesting and wish I could have heard it in its entirety.

6. Logistics Viewpoint; Monday, November 21, 2011

HEADLINE: Transportation Regulatory Trends

Byline: Steve Banker

Over the past few weeks I’ve attend TMC’s Interactive Client Forum and Descartes’ Evolution 2011 User Conference (TMC and Descartes are ARC clients). At both conferences, there were speakers focused on regulatory trends in transportation. The Descartes conference featured Annette Sandberg, a former Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). TMC’s conference featured Angie Freeman, C.H. Robinson’s VP of Investor Relations and Public Affairs (TMC is the transportation managed services division of C.H. Robinson Worldwide).

“Hopefully everyone’s had their coffee because I’m going to speak about regulatory issues,” Annette joked at the beginning of her speech. But I found her speech, and Angie’s, interesting and insightful. What I particularly valued is that both speakers – two very smart women – did not just report on where regulations stood, but gave their informed opinion on where things are likely to go.

Here are my four main takeaways from the two speeches:

1. Since we are going into an election year, the pace of regulation will slow down because agencies don’t want to create any controversy. Deadlines have already slipped for several pending rules, and many will slip further.

2. There has been a lot of focus on Hours of Service (HOS). Of all the pending transportation regulations, HOS is the least likely to happen. The Obama administration has admitted that it is one of the most expensive rules pending across all US government agencies. Further, once the rulemaking process is finalized, it is susceptible to a successful court appeal because the FMCSA changed the way it conducted its required cost/benefit analysis for this regulation.

3. If you go to the site where the Carrier Safety Measurement Safety (SMS) data is displayed, there is a disclosure that states “Readers should not draw conclusions about a carrier’s overall safety condition simply based on the data displayed in this system.” Many shippers believe that this disclosure helps protect them from litigation if they use a carrier with marginal or unfit ratings that ends up in a crash. But they are mistaken. Motor carriers are only mandated to carry at least $750,000 in insurance. If there is a crash that causes multiple fatalities, $750,000 does not go very far. Lawyers will go after shippers and brokers with deeper pockets.

So what should a shipper do? Have a policy framework in place and follow it consistently. That policy should include checking SMS scores of your carriers frequently (there are software solutions that have proactive alerts for this). The policy should also set standards for which carriers can and can’t be used based on their scores. One key piece of advice: don’t make this policy too restrictive. In case of a lawsuit, it is worse to have a policy in place and not follow it then not to have a policy at all. So before deciding what sort of policy to implement, shippers are advised to do a simulation and see how many carriers would fall out of their routing guide based on a particular driver scoring threshold. But also realize that using carriers with overall ratings of “Unfit” or “Marginal” could be dangerous.

4. Electronic On-Board Recorders (EOBRs) are being proposed as a way to replace paper documentation to show compliance to HOS. While the mobility revolution is driving down the cost of GPS-enabled mobile devices, EOBRs are actually pretty expensive – a $1,000-$4,000 purchase price – based on the requirement that law enforcement officials must be able to plug into the device to download data. Despite the expense, there will likely be an industry-wide EOBR mandate within the next 5 years.

The FMCSA, as part of its ongoing responsibilities, audits carriers and asks them if they use GPS to track their trucks. If a carrier says yes, they compare the GPS data to the paper logs. Between 30 and 70 percent of the time the entries don’t match. As a result, a carrier’s rating can move from satisfactory to conditional and the carrier can lose business. In short, there are good reasons for a carrier to use an EOBR even if it is not required.

Whenever regulations are discussed, carriers and shippers assume that transportation costs will rise. But transportation costs are far more correlated with the price of fuel than anything else. In fact, there is a graph in Morgan Stanley’s June 2011 freight transportation report that shows drivers have lost ground during this economic downturn as compared to an index of the Wages & Salaries of Private Industry Workers and the Consumer Price Index. As of now, there is no real proof of a driver shortage because if there was a shortage, driver wages would be rising.

End.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Thanks for posting this.

I think this illustrates two other problems within this industry, one comes out in the comment;

Many shippers believe that this disclosure [SMS] helps protect them from litigation if they use a carrier with marginal or unfit ratings that ends up in a crash.

Followed by;

But also realize that using carriers with overall ratings of “Unfit” or “Marginal” could be dangerous.


From these two statements, I find that if the liability for the shipper is one cause that they have to seek out not just the cheapest rate per ton mile but also seek out the best carrier to do the work, then it would seem to make better sense that they are the solution to their own problems with liabilities. By making a concerted effort to decrease the need to seek out rates that fit into their budget savings, not seeking out the cheapest rate to move the freight, the effort would in turn allow carriers and owners to be consistent in their profit margins in order to maintain their equipment and the quality of drivers.

Which brings me up to the issue of EOBRs and GPS systems. The GPS systems are not infallible, to be exact depending on them is really not a fool proof.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
"1. Since we are going into an election year, the pace of regulation will slow down because agencies don’t want to create any controversy. Deadlines have already slipped for several pending rules, and many will slip further."


Good post, thanks.

I find the above statement very interesting. If regulations were being written for safety reasons they would not allow political considerations to come into play. Safety is important, far more important then someones chance of being elected. This statement just further confirms that regulations are being written to push political agendas or increase revenue as opposed to true safety issues.
 

moose

Veteran Expediter
Good morning!
Linda thanks for posting.
i do NOT believe the above analysis for one bit.
- I'd bet my antlers that Annette Sandberg is up to grab this coming elections. she keep pupping up reminding us all how good smart of a bureaucrat she is.and have a very big personal stake in the Gov. and privet sectors. i'd take most of she wrote with a grain of salt.
CH Robinson WW, clearly have a hard time, the brokerage industry is being widely effected by the new regulations. all a CHRobinson spokesman can say, have nothing, but nothing to do with reality as they have such a big financial stake in the game.
- 'Angie Freeman, C.H. Robinson’s VP of Investor Relations and Public Affairs' clearly do not give us a valid picture of the insurance dilemma carriers are facing. nothing more then a scare tactic trying to lore shippers.
- i'm with LOS on the Election thing. not only that we will not see a slowdown on regulatory.
the election year, ANY elections year, for my own recall increase Gov. regulatory, as bureaucrats do their best to show they do something for safety shake.
sorry drivers, we are a dime a dozen electoral wise.

- it's actually very funny,(to use a 334 term), reading the world lowest paying broker firm, talking about how drivers needs to understand they are not getting enough pay.
when the fact is that it's most feared competitors,( IC and O/O leased to a carrier with their own costumers base ) is stribing as a result of a diesel upprice,
while brokerage are stealing the contractors paychecks in a worthless effort to retain shippers.
back in 2005(i believe it was) when fuel prices hit 4.5 for the first time, CHrobinson's could not find a truck . same might happens here once more.
they clearly in the hurt. and are screaming.
no news here, move on.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Like Greg said GPS technology is flawed...they can not "beyond a shadow of a doubt" hold a conviction..all it is going to take is few drivers fighting in courts or the OOIDA and prove their point and the system will crash and burn...
 
Top