Regulation Room is an open government pilot project aimed at increasing the breadth and quality of public participation in the rulemaking process. It is a collaboration between the Cornell eRulemaking Initiative (CeRI), which owns, designs, and operates the site, and the Department of Transportation, which has selected Regulation Room as its flagship initiative under the Open Government Directive.

From February 6–May 22, 2011, people could use Regulation Room to learn about and discuss a new rule, “Electronic On-board Recorders and Hours of Service Supporting Documents,” proposed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration The agency proposing the EOBR rule (FMCSAFederal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule)) . This time frame coincided with the official comment period for the rule, which closed May 23, 2011.

On May 16 & 17, the Regulation Room team posted Draft Summaries of the discussion. All registered users were invited by email to review the drafts and suggest additions or changes until Sunday, May 22. In that time, 601 unique visitors visited the site and 5 commenters posted 10 suggestions.  The team reviewed all suggestions and then prepared the Final Summaries that appear below.

On May 23, these Summaries were submitted, via Regulations.gov, to DOT Department of Transportation as a formal public comment in the rulemaking.  (For more on the legal significance of this, see the FAQs.) Registered users received an email notifying them that the Final Summary had been posted on the site and submitted to DOT.

You may submit an individual comment directly to DOT Department of Transportation on the proposed rule by visiting Regulations.gov by midnight on Monday, May 23, 2011.  DOT’s general policy is to consider late-submitted comments to the extent possible, but you should file your comment as close to May 23 as possible.

Materials from the Discussion Phase, including the Draft and Final Summaries, will remain available on Regulation Room for public review. A file of all content submitted by users will be made available to DOT Department of Transportation at its option.  (This file will not include any personally identifiable information you did not choose to make publicly viewable on the site. See Privacy & Conditions.)

[dig]

Who participated?

During the 106 days the rule was open on Regulation Room, a total of 5,328 unique visitors came to the site. There were 8,855 total visits, with people spending an average of 3.41 minutes on the site. Of the issue posts, the average time on the page was longest for What Will It Cost (4.48 minutes) and shortest for Would Penalties/Enforcement Change (2.13 minutes). The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was viewed 136 times; the proposed rule text was viewed 106 times.

Anyone could read material on the site, but registration was required to participate in the discussion. 104 people registered during the time the rule was open.

Based on answers to a survey at registration, 27% of those who registered said that they had previously submitted a comment in a federal rulemaking. A second survey question asked people to describe their interest in the rule. More than one category could be selected, so the numbers add up to more than 104.

Based on these responses, 33% were both CMV Commercial Motor Vechicles Drivers and CMV Commercial Motor Vechicles Owner/Managers. 61% of CMV Commercial Motor Vechicles Owner/Managers were Independent Owner-Operators or Owner/Operators leased to another carrier. 22% of all respondents said they use or have used an EOBR, AOBRD, or fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies management system.

• CMV Driver: 54
  • Long haul: 45
  • Short haul: 29
  • Passenger carrier: 2
  • Hazmat: 11
  • Other: 3 (including one who drove for agricultural purposes 4 times a year)
  • CMV Owner/Manager: 61
    • Independent Owner-Operator: 18
    • Owner/Op leased to another carrier: 19
    • Trucking business: 24
    • Bus/motorcoach: 1
    • Other: 10
    • Number of vehicles/units: 21 responded
      • 9 responded the number of vehicles units was 1
      • 2 responded the number of vehicles/units was 2
      • 1 responded the number of vehicles/units was 3
      • 1 responded the number of vehicles/units was 10
      • 1 responded the number of vehicles/units was 11
      • 1 responded the number of vehicles/units was 40
      • 1 responded the number of vehicles/units was 3
      • 1 responded the number of vehicles/units was 70+
      • 1 responded the number of vehicles/units was 134
      • 1 responded the number of vehicles/units was 5000+
      • 2 did not identify the number of vehicles/units
      • Use/have used EOBR, AOBRD or fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies mgt system: 23
      • Equipment manufacturer/supplier: 8
      • Law Enforcement: 2
      • Advocacy group: 3
      • Interested member of the public: 9
      • Researcher: 1  Field: Natural Language Processing
      • Other: 4 (1 identified him/herself as a retired driver and DOT Department of Transportation educator)

NOTE:  Regulation Room does not attempt to check whether people correctly identify their interests. For this reason, whenever the summary states a commenter’s interest, the description is based solely on information given by the commenter.

Of the 104 registered users, 68 posted 235 comments while the discussion was open. Site moderators posted a total of 111 comments. Comments by users were distributed as follows (these totals do not include moderator posts):

• Who would have to use and EOBR: 103 comments by 48 users
• What about privacy concerns: 33 comments by 11 users
• What will this cost: 64 comments by 21 users
• What about supporting documents: 11 comments by 5 users
• Would penalties/enforcement change: 20 comments by 12 users
• When would it take effect: 4 comments by an estimated 4 users

Four other people who did not comment elsewhere on the site endorsed comments. These included an independent owner/operator leased to another carrier, a short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers driver, an independent owner/operator who has used an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) or other similar device, and one individual who did not indicate his/her interest.

Additionally, five users posted 10 comments on the Draft Summaries.

[dig]

Final Summaries of Discussion

• Who would have to use and EOBR?
• What about privacy concerns?
• What will this cost?
• What about supporting documents?
• Would penalties/enforcement change?
• When would it take effect?

Thank you for being part of the Regulation Room experiment in making important federal rulemakings more accessible to the public!

[dig]

To help us make Regulation Room better, please take this SHORT survey on your experience.  (If you’ve already taken the survey on using RegulationRoom for the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule, please don’t take it again.)

This post got 102 comments from 48 people; moderators responded 53 times.

Commenters included a dozen people who identified themselves as CMV Commercial Motor Vechicles drivers (the majority being both long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers and short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers drivers), several hazardous materials drivers, and one bus/motorcoach driver.  Nine said they were independent owner/operators and eleven were owner/operators leased to another carrier.  Twelve said they were owners or managers of trucking businesses.  One of those said they had 70+ units. About half of the commenters had used an EOBR, AOBRD, or fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies management system.  Two commenters are interested members of the public, and one was a member of an advocacy group interested in this rule. One identified himself/herself as working for an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) equipment manufacturer/supplier. Two other people  (including a short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers driver) who did not comment elsewhere endorsed comments.

[dig]

Overview.  This post had the most discussion, with commenters raising issues that appear in the other posts as well.  The vast majority of commenters oppose the proposed rule.

Most commenters believe that the proposed rule will not increase safety—or, at least, think FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) cannot show that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) will increase safety, or that the amount of increased safety is worth the cost (especially to smaller operations). They insist both that there is a lack of data about fatigue and that existing data about accidents do not support the need for such a drastic rule.  They also question the percentage of drivers who are not complying now: The rule will not increase safety if most drivers are already complying, and the ones who are not complying are already subject to the new habitual offender rule. Some point out that there are various ways to manipulate EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) and believe that drivers/carriers determined to violate the HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) rules will still find ways to do so.  Finally, some argue that the stress of being constantly monitored and of the economic burden of more costs in a marginally profitable industry will actually decrease safe driving. Many are insulted that FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) assumes they are breaking the law and and is proposing to treat them in the same way as habitual violators.

Cost is a huge concern, with commenters worried that the economy is already weak, and that the trucking industry is facing other rising costs, especially for fuel.  Small carriers are especially alarmed, believing that the added cost would finally put them out of business.

Several commenters emphasize that an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) mandate will only work if the federal government also changes other aspects of trucking industry regulation. These commenters are divided on whether the proposed rule is a good idea, but all of them are adamant that broader regulatory reform is needed.  They identify shippers and receivers, who neither understand nor respect the HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) rules, as the main problem. Shippers and receivers expect truckers to arrive or leave at specific times, whether or not they are meeting their own commitments about being ready to load or unload, and they don’t allow for any flexibility so that the drivers can comply with HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) rules.  This forces drivers to rush to their destinations, risking HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) violations.  Some also blame carriers for pressuring, and even helping, their drivers to violate HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) rules. These commenters say that everyone associated with a shipment should have responsibility for HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) compliance. Adopting only an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) mandate, without dealing with these bigger issues, will unfairly put all the stress and responsibility on drivers’ shoulders.

[dig]

Safety. About two dozen commenters argue that the proposed EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) mandate either will not improve highway safety at all or will actually lower it.  Two commenters predict that safety will be increased.

1.  Optimism about safety benefits.  Two commenters believe that mandatory EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) could provide some safety benefits.  One commenter (a 23-year veteran of the trucking industry who is a long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers hazmat owner/operator) believes the rule will mean less paperwork for drivers and companies and will get drivers to  “operate by the book, which will increase safety.”  However, he/she couples this prediction with a proposal for two changes in existing regulations:  “The first is that the shipper loads the truck and consignee unloads. In our present state, there is no reason for a driver to be required to do anything but drive. The second is to lose the 70 hour recap for longhaul drivers and replace it with a system of mandatory 1.5 to 2 days off for every week out. [T]he issue of recapturing lost sleep has been debunked. Better to enable the driver to recuperate at home rather than try to stretch it out while on the road.  With this in mind, 10 hrs/day is plenty of workload for the average driver due to the increased amount of mental stress as opposed to old style physical stress in the past.”

The second commenter (an owner/manager of Gorski Bulk Transport, a trucking business with 70+units) draws on his/her company’s experience with EOBRs: “Providing you are a company that educates and monitors your fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies you have nothing to worry about with EOBRs. A lot of the fear of EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) seems to stem from a lack of good practices following the HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) in the first place, maintaining safe and operational vehicles and having to be accountable for everything in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation handbook. Drivers and the {companies] they work for need to truly understand what is required by law when operating a trucking operation. Before CSA and EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) there was no universal USA wide to understand or score carriers. We’ve heard from many companies that CSA makes it a lot clearer what they are buying into.”

2.  Skepticism and (pessimism) about safety benefits. Most commenters believe that the proposed rule will not increase safety–or at least that FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) cannot show that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) will increase safety, or that the amount of increased safety is worth the cost (especially for smaller operations).

Several commenters argue that the safety statistics for CMV Commercial Motor Vechicles drivers do not support the prediction that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) will increase safety.  One (a safety consultant to the trucking industry who has one vehicle and who has used EOBRs) points to declining accident rates and states, “This industry has proven over the past few years that safety and product delivery can work well together.  It does not need any higher dollar technology to achieve good safety.”  Another person (a short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers driver) who did not comment elsewhere endorsed this comment.  Another (a short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers driver) argues, “The DOT Department of Transportation admits in Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 64, that the Agency is not aware of any published information that demonstrates that the specific mandate imposed has contributed to any discernible benefits in safety.” He/she points out that lawbreakers will always find a way around new regulations. A third  (a long haul/short haul hazmat owner/operator leased to another carrier) quotes statistics published in Landline Magazine: “As miles traveled increase, the 2009 fatality rate of 1.13 deaths per 100 million miles traveled was the lowest since 1950. Highway deaths totaled 33,808 in 2009, and despite a 9.7 percent decrease over the previous year.” A fourth (a long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers owner/operator leased to another carrier who has used EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) or similar devices) links to DOT Department of Transportation statistics showing that truck related accidents were down 20% from 2008 to 2009 (a number that the commenter says does not take into account accidents that non-truck drivers caused, which the commenter says is 75% of total truck accidents). Combined with steadily declining numbers of truck accidents since 1997, this shows that FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) does not have the facts on its side. Another commenter (an interested member of the public) points out FMCSA’s admission in the cost/benefit study that HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) “cannot be considered the cause for the recent decline in truck-involved fatalities and injuries” and that the impact of HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) regulations or compliance on highway safety cannot reliable be measured. “The conversation should go no further,” he/she asserts.

One commentor (an owner the company that owns the rights to repayment of the mortgage principal plus interest of one unit) argues that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) will not improve safety for all the drivers who are now driving legally: “If a driver does not break the rules and sticks to the HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) then there will be no safety issues because he or she will have done what they are supposed to without the EOBR.”

Another (an independent owner/operator who has used EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) or similar devices) says that many drivers do not realize the current HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) rule is a federal regulation and are willing to violate the rule to be able to keep consignee contracts. He/she predicts that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) will not change this compliance problem because carriers will teach their drivers “how to bypass the eobr’s recording of movement in a way that it will not show up.” Another cites a Landline Magazine article pointing out that the driver still has to manually input information, and claiming that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) are easy to tamper with.  A third commenter (a long haul/short haul driver who works for Sunset Logistics in Ft. Worth) describes how he/she believes the company is already manipulating e-logs. He/she says that drivers must show up for work 1 to 4 hours before an EOBR-equipped truck is ready for them to drive. Only then do the drivers log into a PeopleNet EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) system—but the hours they spent waiting for a truck are not counted toward their on-duty time. “The company says it is how it is done and we just have to ‘suck it up’ as drivers and ‘grow up’.” This same commenter gives an example of getting around the HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) rules even with EOBRs: When his truck broke down during one of his drives his carrier gave him a new truck and allowed him to log into the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) of that truck, restarting his HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) even though he had already driven for five hours.  Another commenter mentions that it is easy to log out of an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) and continue driving, although some devices have an alarm that goes off if the truck is moving and the driver is not logged into the EOBR.

One commenter (a long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers owner/manager of a trucking business who has used EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) or similar devices) reiterates both the lack of good safety evidence and that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) are not foolproof.  He/she believes that the rule is too broad. “I drive and have a small company. My motto is if you cannot do it legal do not do it. I know there are a very few who do not run legal but I can assure you there will be those when you have EOBRs. Contrary to those who don’t know better these devices are not fool proof they depend on driver input and there can be mistakes. I just talked to a Ms. DOT Department of Transportation officer who told me that a large carrier who allows 6 mo. old drivers to become trainers often come in with their EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) logs that are all messed up, ie both drivers on duty, wrong driver on duty etc. So I don’t believe EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) will solve this problem… I do not believe that all companies should have to spend the money to buy and install these devises in their trucks. I do agree that companies who cannot operate in a safe manner should be forced to install these devises and but more importantly should be followed up with vigorously to insure compliance both in the back office and on the road.”  He/she expresses frustration:  “It is a sad day when all these special interest groups lobby to pass regulations on an industry that has shown consistent improvement in safety when such regulations are often burdensome and do not really solve the real problem.”

On the “real problem,” one commenter (an independent owner/operator with one vehicle) says the real safety concerns for the trucking industry are caused by a variety of distractions for drivers, including “too many road signs to read, poorly maintained roads, texting drivers, in use dvd players, computers in use, gps, cell phones, radar detectors, cb radios, xm radios , overhead or roadside electronic info boards, restricted lanes , cpap machines if you’re fat, 17″ necks, . . . auxilliary power units at $9000.00, . . . and finally the onboard hours of service Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive recorder.”

Another commenter (a long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers independent owner/operator with two vehicles) argues that if we are serious about safety we should require EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) on all vehicles, because there is no evidence proving that trucks cause more accidents than cars.

Finally, several commenters  predict the proposed rule will actually decrease safety, due to an increase in drivers’ stress from having to use a new device that records everything they do, and to the bad economic effects the rule will have on the industry.  These commenters say that more stressed out drivers means less highway safety.  The added expense and stress for many smaller carriers and drivers will force them out of the industry because of cost, frustration, or both. Commenters (including long haul, short haul, and hazmat owner/operators, some of whom are leased to another carrier, and some of whom have EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) experience) point out that these drivers are generally more experienced and safer than the young drivers hired by larger carriers that can afford EOBRs. They predict that young, inexperienced drivers will push the HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) limits more because of low wages and efforts to beat the clock, leading to more accidents.

Moreover, two commenters (both owner/operators, one of whom is leased to another carrier) point out that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) cannot determine when a driver is actually fatigued. Therefore, EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) will not solve a major problem drivers currently face: They are often “legal” to drive because they have not reached the HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) limits but are still fatigued.  Yet they are pushed to start again because the electronics say they can legally do so.
[dig]

HOS and EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) inflexibility.  Many commenters explain that a major source of stress and worry about EORBs is the inflexibility of the current HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) system. EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) will add yet another layer of rigidity to the regulatory landscape.  (You can read these commenters’ personal experiences here.) Commenters fear that they will be forced to stop only a few miles from their destination or a safe place to stop. One commenter says that the government enforcement officers often make HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) issues worse because they do not allow drivers to stop many places that are safe to sleep (such as highway off-ramps) and give the drivers tickets if they do not move from these spots.  Others complain that there will be no way to take account of breakdowns, traffic jams and other problems, weather, or other circumstances out of their control.  Many are concerned that the result of EOBR-monitoring will be not only to force them to stop driving before they are tired but also to start driving again before they are fully rested, largely because dispatchers and employers will push them to get on the road again as soon as they are “legal” regardless of whether the driver feels rested.

Some commenters who use EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) do describe positive experiences. It appears that these are drivers working for relatively larger companies. One (a long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers driver) says that using a smart phone as an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) and GPS Global positioning system (A space-based global navigation satellite system that provides location and time information anywhere on Earth) has worked well for him and that he finds it easy to use.  Another (an owner/manager of a trucking business with 70 units) says that when EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) were introduced in his company, drivers had no complaints after a few months of getting used to the devices.  Instead, the drivers began to complain when they were forced to use paper logs in situations where there were computer problems.   A third commenter (a long haul/short haul hazmat driver) says that overall, EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) make driving easier because the driver does not have to reach for a log book every time his or her duty status changes, and because law enforcement officers don’t question the records since everything is clear.  However, he/she also explains that it depends a lot on the driver’s situation and the kind of company:  “I drive for Wal Mart and use [an] EOBR[. It] is a wonderful tool for the type of driving I do. However I think it will put a lot of hard working drivers out of business. Unless some rules are changed and enforced, the wait time loading and unloading will kill them. Also the time waiting for dispatch to give them their next load will be a problem. [FMCSA] cannot help with the latter but the loading and unloading is a major problem for drivers. I have sat a grocery store warehouse for up to ten hours waiting to get unloaded, when I was on time and did my part. With [an] EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) this would kill my driving hours. Rules need to be put into force regulating the time they can hold the driver while loading and unloading.” He/she says that “In order to make money you have to keep moving.”

This problem with shippers and receivers is the most frequently mentioned concern about external factors that would force the drivers to bypass an EOBR’s recording system or face losing a contract.  One commenter gives the example of the company CH Robinson that charges a $350 fine on a $700 delivery if a carrier fails to make a delivery on time.  Drivers are not only under pressure to pick up and deliver goods within unreasonable time frames, but also are often forced to sit for long periods of time while waiting to be loaded and unloaded.  In many situations, drivers are not paid for this waiting time, and commenters say that many carriers force drivers to falsify their HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) logs so that the waiting time will not be counted in their HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) driving time.  The commenter who uses EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) and likes them  points out that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) would stop this falsification, but unless this problem is resolved, the proposed rule will cost drivers thousands of dollars in lost driving time.  DOT Department of Transportation needs to “set maximum loading and unloading times and go after companies who violate [these times].”

Commenters make several suggestions for resolving some of these underlying problems with HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) inflexibility.  One (an owner/operator leased to another carrier) urges FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) to re-regulate the haul-rate so that drivers “won’t have to keep hauling dollar freight and pay for all this other stuff too.”  Another (a short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers hazmat driver who has been driving for 23 years) urges regulations that make shippers and receivers fully responsible for loading and unloading so that drivers are only responsible for driving.  This commenter would also like for FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) to change the “70-hour recap for longhaul drivers and replace it with a system of mandatory 1.5 to 2 days off for every week out [driving].”  He/she reasons that drivers are able to recuperate much better at home on the weekends than by trying to catch up on sleep while out on the road.  A third commenter (a long haul/short haul driver who has used an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) or similar device) suggests changing HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) rules to allow for 5 hours of driving time, 5 hours of docking time, and 14 hours of sleeping time so that drivers are not forced to do “everything.”  Another person who did not comment elsewhere endorsed this comment.

Another commenter (a long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers owner/operator leased to another carrier) proposes a completely different approach: “Eliminate the HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) [rules] and the proposed EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) for experienced drivers with satisfactory/good records, have them carry an ID card exempting them from HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) and EOBRs. Use the EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) and the HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) for new inexperienced drivers just out of school, and those with poor safety records. Use the EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) and the HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) for a training tool for new drivers and a consequence for drivers with a bad safety records.”

[dig]

Costs. Commenters are concerned with the costs of EOBRS, and small companies are especially concerned.

Commenters worry about the added costs of this rule on the “already hurting” trucking industry.  One (an independent owner/operator) says that the pay in this industry has dropped in recent years and another (an interested member of the public) points out how the “standard of living” and “quality of life” of drivers have declined.  Many commenters (independent owner/operators and/or small trucking business owners/managers) are worried and angry this would be another expense for an industry that has faced so many other increasing costs, including taxes, rising fuel, and many other regulations (including emissions regulations).

Commenters particularly complain of the impact on small businesses, with several saying the added expense would drive companies out of business.  One (a long haul/short haul hazmat owner/operator leased to another carrier) estimates the rule would cost him $1,200-$2,000 upfront, with weekly costs of $40-60.  He/she complains that this would use up the money saved for his/her first vacation in years; if this commenter is forced to pay several thousand dollars to follow this rule, he/she will have to leave the trucking industry.  Another (long haul, short haul) agrees, saying that it’s already a struggle to pay bills and provide for his/her family without this added expense.  He fears that companies will have to fire drivers to offset the increased costs of mandated EOBRs.  One commenter who did not comment elsewhere endorsed this comment.  Another (long haul/short haul; passenger carrier, motorcoach) complains that this rule would cost more money for the companies that actually follow the laws.

Many commenters are upset and angry that the rule will disproportionately harm smaller companies.  One argues that only drivers who work for the large carriers like EOBRs. Another points out that smaller companies are already at a disadvantage compared to the larger companies, especially in terms of fuel costs since larger companies get better fuel discounts.  Another agrees that small businesses are already suffering from a “thin profit margin.”

Three commenters (all owner/operators leased to another carrier) are particularly concerned with the added costs of an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) to older, mechanical trucks.   One worries that his non-electronic truck would not support an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) and thus the rule would make his truck “worthless.”  Another fears that FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) will force people who drive these older trucks to buy a brand new truck or “do whatever it takes” to follow the new rule.  The third says, “I don’t have a problem if we have to start using them but I’m not going to go 170,000 dollars in debt to be compliant.”

Several commenters predict that the costs would have to be passed on to consumers, driving up prices for fuel, produce, household goods, and manufacturing industry goods.  One, who works for a company that provides medical services to rural hospitals, predicts that the costs would be passed on to the healthcare industry.  He points out that many industries rely on trucking.  Another (an owner/operator leased to another carrier) worries that trucking companies will lose work when they have to pass along costs to consumers.  Several are concerned with how this rule would affect the currently “weak” and “fragile” economy.

One commenter suggests that instead of using EOBRs, FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) should look into using something similar to the Pikepass.  This commenter explains that the Pikepass is a device that is scanned when a driver travels though a toll and automatically charges the toll amount to the driver’s account.  This machine can scan the time a driver goes through the toll as well.  This commenter feels that a device like this could capture the information needed to monitor a driver’s HOS, but would not cause as many privacy concerns as the EOBR.

[dig]

Questioning motives for the proposed rule. Because they don’t believe FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) has shown safety and other benefits from EORBs likely to justify the large costs, several small carriers and independent owner/operator commenters  think this rule is being proposed because of lobbying from EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) manufacturers.  Some suspect that large trucking companies, who are better able to deal with the new costs of EOBRs, are lobbying for this rule to drive out competition.  A few commenters even believe that the DOT Department of Transportation itself is profiting from this rule.

[dig]

The current EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) requirement is enough. Many commenters argue strongly that the current approach of requiring only habitual HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) offenders to install EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) is enough to keep drivers compliant.

For many commenters, being forced to use compliance devices and being placed in the same category as habitual violators is unfair and insulting.  Several (including owner/operators, long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers owner/operators leased to another carrier, short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers drivers, hazmat carriers, and carriers with a small number of units) say that treating all drivers like habitual violators would “punish the innocent” or presume that all drivers are “guilty.”  One compares the current habitual-offender rule to ankle bracelet monitoring devices sometimes used for criminals. He or she says that this is a great system for lawbreakers, but it would be unfair and intrusive for law-abiding motor carriers.  Three others view the proposal as analogous to putting someone on house arrest for a crime they did not commit.  This frustration is increased for those who conclude that FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) has not adequately justified the claims of safety improvement and other benefits as compared to the costs.  “The DOT Department of Transportation did not provide an adequate cost and benefit analysis due to a lack of adequate cost and benefit data, yet they are still pursuing an industry wide implementation of this new rule without conducting a cost and benefit analysis based from recent data as they stated they would.”

Several commenters (owner/operators and small carrier owners) insist that under the current system, violators—whom they say are only about 10% of drivers, usually driving for large carriers—will be caught, especially if FCMSA vigorously follows up on violations both in the back office and with drivers.  “If the big companies would spend what is necessary they would not be in the bottom 10% and would not have to install the recorders in their fleets, so why not bring them up to the level of the other 90% instead of dragging the 90% down to their level and in the process bankrupt a lot of good and compliant owner-operators.” Another (an independent owner/operator with three units) asks, “why should I, a compliant driver pay for the sins of a few?”

Finally, one commenter  (an owner/manager of a trucking business with ten units) points out that “CSA reporting has only been in place for one year and has not been given long enough to show its effects on industry compliance.  Carriers are becoming much more aware of the penalties to being deficient under CSA and how cost prohibitive being non-HOS compliant is.” Returning to the absence of data on the extent of the problem, he/she argues, “If FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) could prove that most carriers were non HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) compliant, most carriers would already be required to have EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) under current rules. This is a huge negative industry cost with no increase in safety.”
[dig]

Short haulers. Two commenters specifically address whether short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers drivers should be included.

One (an owner/manager of a trucking business) worries that exempting short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers trucks will produce unfair strategic behavior from large companies:  “You are going to create a monster by exempting SH short-haul: generally, < 150 mi. from base for property carriers carriers. Large long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers companies will adapt to take advantage of the SH short-haul: generally, < 150 mi. from base for property carriers exemption. Example, I have terminals nationwide. I take a load from California, move it to my terminal within my SH short-haul: generally, < 150 mi. from base for property carriers limits drop it and another truck picks it up and does the same thing. By doing this I can get a load across American faster than a LH long-haul; generally >150 mi. from base for property carriers company, Because some of my ‘short Haul’ drivers will be able to cheat their logs. You have now created an unlevel playing field between the SH short-haul: generally, < 150 mi. from base for property carriers and LH long-haul; generally >150 mi. from base for property carriers companies.”

The other (an owner/manager of a non-trucking business with ten units) has a very different view:  “I harvest grain from Texas to Montana. Most of my trucking is on rural roads and exempt from HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) rules under 395.1k. However there are between 10 and 15 days a year where I operate under RODS. Requiring EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) for carriers that infrequently have to log hours will be a substantial addition burden in both cost and complexity of use than what over the road carriers will face under this rule. When I am moving under RODS Record of duty status (A logbook maintained by CMV drivers to track driving time (i.e., duty status) for each 24-hour period) there is very low probability of violating HOS. I am moving in convoy with up to 10 units and pulling oversized loads which can only move in daylight hours. All of my RODS Record of duty status (A logbook maintained by CMV drivers to track driving time (i.e., duty status) for each 24-hour period) trips except one is less then 440 miles. The EBORs rule is a one size fits all rule. Motor carriers People providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation. The term includes a motor carrier’s agents, officers and employees are not all over-the-road haulers carrying freight everyday across the country. There are a lot of utility trucks, farm trucks, and pickups that will be swept into this EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule even though most of their miles do not require RODS.”  The commenter estimates that if short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers drivers are included in the mandate the cost estimates will rise to $8 billion because 10 million drivers will fall under the mandate instead of the 2 million if only long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers carriers are covered. On the draft summary, another echoes this concern by asking if there would be “any allowances for apiary operations (bee keepers) that move colonies of honey bees between states for crop pollination and honey production,” noting that this movement only takes place two to three times annually.

Although he/she opposes including short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers drivers, the commenter with the grain harvesting operation also addresses how such a requirement should be structured if adopted:  “If EBORs are mandated there needs to be a clear line of who has to use them and how does not. This line has to be extremely clear to enforcement so there is no roadside misinterpretation of who has to comply. The idea of any carrier that has to do RODS Record of duty status (A logbook maintained by CMV drivers to track driving time (i.e., duty status) for each 24-hour period) more than 2 days a week must use EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) is too vague. Is that in just one week a year or all 52 weeks?  What if a carrier has to do RODS Record of duty status (A logbook maintained by CMV drivers to track driving time (i.e., duty status) for each 24-hour period) for 5 days in one week and never at any other time of the year. I would suggest that the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule applying to short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers carriers needs to be based on number of miles driven per year per power unit or total number of days per year requiring RODS Record of duty status (A logbook maintained by CMV drivers to track driving time (i.e., duty status) for each 24-hour period) or Number of miles per year requiring RODS. This metric could be based on information provided in an MCS-150 and then the CSA data could state whether a carrier has to be compliant with EOBRs.”

Read what commenters have said about their personal experiences relevant to the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule here.

This post got 33 comments from 11 users; moderators responded 15 times.

Commenters included primarily people who identified themselves as owner/operators and a few owners of trucking businesses. Several of the owner/operators have a lease arrangement with other carriers. Three commenters stated they had previously used an EOBR, AOBRD, or fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies management system. Two commenters identified themselves as members of an advocacy group interested in this rule.
[dig]
General overview. The overwhelming majority of commenters on the privacy post are strongly against an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) requirement, with one commenter going as far as to condemn EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) as a form of Orwellian “Big Brother”—“[t]his could be the misguided use of this equipment.”

Several consider EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) as inflexible, overly expensive record keepers that raise concerns about privacy and harassment without creating substantial safety benefits to warrant widespread replacement of paper logs. (Many complained that FMCSA’s own data on trucking crashes show there is no need for the rule.) Also, several commenters are offended that an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) requirement means FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) distrusts drivers and is proposing to treat all drivers the same way as it now treats high safety risk drivers.

The main privacy concern was the amount of information collected by EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) and the way this information could be abused. Many felt that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) would collect too much information and would be transferred in an insecure way. (There was some uncertainty about just what data would be collected, especially since current fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies management systems collect more data than FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) would require.) Also, many were concerned about allowing enforcement officials physical access to the inside of the truck and to the truck’s electronic equipment.

One commenter to this post did support the proposal because EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) could help keep better track of the drivers in his/her operation.

[dig]

Too much information collected. Several commenters are concerned about the types of information collected by EOBRs, believing that such information is not necessary to police HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) compliance. One commenter felt extremely uneasy with the lack of information regarding EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) in general and stated, “[f]or all we know, they could have listening devices installed within.”

One complains that recording vehicle speed would let the “EOBR police” come after him/her for speeding; when the moderator pointed out that FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) was not requiring EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) to record speed, another commenter objected that it “only requires a little math” to figure out speed once location and time are recorded. Another commenter similarly objects to collecting location data as unnecessary: He/she is highly suspicious of the motives for collecting such data, theorizing that DOT Department of Transportation might be paving the way for a “vehicle miles tax.” This commenter believes that any data collection other than what is strictly required for HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) compliance (which he/she identifies as hours on-duty, off-duty, driving, and “no other information”) is an unnecessary expense that will burden small business owners; this commenter insists that “savings” to truckers from collecting other information should not be included in DOT’s cost/benefit estimates.

By contrast, one commenter (a “trucking business” with 7 vehicles/units) is not opposed to “track[ing] our drivers.” “We know that drivers can be a liability for smaller fleets because some of them think that after they get done with their assignments the truck is just their personal vehicle. I’d also love to know what route they are taking at all times and be able to easily divert my drivers with available information or even advise them where to get fuel without having to call them.” This commenter notes that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) are limited in function as a tracking device compared to other technologies such as cell phones, which track people constantly. It would take many more features for EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) to act as legitimate tracking devices—none of which DOT Department of Transportation has required.

[dig]

Potential misuse of data. Commenters are concerned about the misuse of EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) data by both authorized and unauthorized entities.

One commenter (a long haul/short haul owner/operator) worries that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) would actually cause more danger to truckers rather than increasing safety: “The availability of the information that will be mandated in the proposed EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule is a treasure trove of information for criminal exploitation. Even though the information required does not go to the GPS Global positioning system (A space-based global navigation satellite system that provides location and time information anywhere on Earth) grid coordinate level, all a criminal needs to know is the city where a truck got loaded. Shipping locations are well known within the transportation community. If you tell me the city a shipment came from I can tell you the most likely contents of the load. Truck hijackers will focus on trucks that have visited cities that ship pharmaceuticals, electronics, copper, aluminum, and other high value loads. Wireless networks and/or have an external access point are generally not considered secure methods of data transmission.” He/she makes three recommendations:

“A. DOT Department of Transportation conduct a study to confirm the security of the information from unauthorized users. If a law enforcement officer can read it via wireless or plug-in information, it is not secure. If wireless networks were secure the DOD would not prohibit their use for sensitive communications.
B. DOT Department of Transportation conduct a study to determine the number of truck drivers who will be killed or injured due to criminal exploitation of the security vulnerabilities of the proposed EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) system.
C. If an upgrade in the systems is require to make them more secure, those costs need to be included in the cost of the proposal.”

At least four commenters specifically express concern about government officials potentially misusing the information gathered by the EOBRs. Mostly these concerns seem related to harassing over-enforcement, although one commenter worries that officials might provide the data to third parties or use the data as a way to monitor truckers beyond what is necessary to ensure compliance with the HOS. He/she is also concerned that EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) checks could result in law enforcement officials conducting invasive physical searches inside vehicles: “The EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) are nothing more than a tool for law enforcement to use to come into my home away from home.”

One commenter points out that fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies management systems record more information that DOT Department of Transportation is requiring, and is worried that this information will also be accessible to official investigators.

One commenter had a different kind of concern: Paper logs are used by drivers for as records for tax purposes. If EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) replace paper, would employers would have to give drivers copies of their log information monthly or yearly?

[dig]

Concerns about mechanics of enforcement. One commenter reports talking with a state highway patrol officer who said they have no software for EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) and so can’t check them. Another commenter expresses concern about damaging the “delicate and expensive” electronic systems in modern trucks by officials “not properly grounding or improperly accessing the data.” He/she provides a report of a Canadian case where a driver was concerned about possible harm to his truck’s electronic system and asked a law enforcement officer to sign a letter assuming damage liability before accessing a mandatory speed-limiting device. The officer refused and issued the driver a citation for non-compliance. The trial court dismissed the citation.
[dig]

Skepticism about safety benefits. In addition to the concern about trucker safety from EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) data falling into the hands of hijackers, several commenters are very critical of the claim that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) will increase safety, and say that FMCSA’s own data don’t support the rule. They complain that the rule will impose unnecessary and unjustified costs for little safety benefit.

They argue that driver fatigue, the rationale for strict compliance with HOS, is not the main culprit for truck crashes. One points to the FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) webinar (Sept. 30, 2010) giving data that crashes have declined and that only 1.4% of trucking accidents are fatigue-related, and complains that FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) is “falsifying its own information to make it seem that new regulations” are needed. Another also complains that the crash data are being “manipulated” and says it is “well known that about 70% of truck crashes were caused by a 4-wheeler.” He/she says that the solution is to educate the public on safe driving rather than burden truckers with more costs. A third says that the data can be found on FMCSA’s own website and this causes drivers to mistrust FMCSA. Other commenters agree that the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule would unfairly single out just some vehicles.

Several commenters argue that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) are being required for the wrong vehicles—namely, the ones not responsible for the accidents. One is offended that rules that now require EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) for companies with high safety risk would be applied to drivers who are not unsafe law breakers. Others express similar views that the proposal does not trust them to be safe drivers and responsibly recognize when they are fatigued.

One commenter points out that EOBRS will not necessarily reach the desired goal because drivers will still have to manually add any change of duty status.

A novel safety point was made by commenters who argued that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) can actually be used to make drivers drive when still fatigued. Two recount personal experiences of using a Qualcom system for a carrier employer. Based on data from the system, one driver would be awakened by a dispatcher telling him/her to start driving again because the 10 hours were up, whether or not it was the middle of the night and he/she had gotten enough sleep. The other reports being awakened by the dispatcher during the 10-hour break to ask how long before the break was over. Another (who also has used EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) or similar devices in the past) agrees: “I also don’t need the ‘fatigue’ that will be created when the data from an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) is used to ‘micromanage’ my time.”

[dig]
Lack of compliance with FISMA. The commenter who raised concerns about wireless-transmitted data being intercepted for criminal/hijacker use argues that DOT Department of Transportation must conduct a study under the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 regarding the security of EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) data transfers. Specifically, he/she makes the following recommendations:

“A. Prior to publication of any EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) regulation, the US DOT Department of Transportation must comply and document compliance with all aspects of the FISMA act to achieve system accreditation as discussed in the following paragraph:

‘Once the system documentation and risk assessment has been completed, the system’s controls must be reviewed and certified to be functioning appropriately. Based on the results of the review, the information system is accredited. The certification and accreditation process is defined in NIST SP 800-37 “Guide for the Security Certification and Accreditation of Federal Information Systems’.

B. Compliance with Federal Laws by DOT Department of Transportation is not optional it is mandatory. Additionally, the reason for information security is to protect individual truck drivers from the violence associated with criminal activity associated with the exploitation of vulnerable information by criminals.

C. Once the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) has been certified, accredited, and documented as required by “Guide for the Security Certification and Accreditation of Federal Information Systems”, the DOT Department of Transportation will need to republish the proposed EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) regulation to include all the additional costs associated with information security.”
[dig]

Concerns about inflexibility of EOBRs. Although not specifically about privacy, some commenters echo concerns expressed on other posts that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) would be difficult to use and cannot adapt to special circumstances that might occur without the driver’s being at fault or able to control them. They are worried that an unexpected delay that occurs just as the maximum hours are up would cause the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) to record a violation without providing an opportunity to explain the situation.

Read what commenters have said about their personal experiences relevant to the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule here.

This post got 64 comments from 21 people; moderators responded 23 times.

Commenters included seven people who identified themselves as trucking business owners or managers with the number of vehicles/units ranging from two to 134.  Four were owner/operators leased to another carrier and four others identified themselves as independent owner/operators. One commenter was a driver of a bus/motorcoach, and another was both a long and short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers driver. Several of the commenters stated they had previously used an EOBR, AOBRD, or fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies management system. Three commenters identified themselves as equipment manufacturers/suppliers. One commenter was an interested member of the public. Two people  (an independent owner/operator leased to another carrier and a short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers independent owner/operator who has used an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) or other similar device) who did not comment elsewhere endorsed comments.

Overview. Discussion is marked by a strong feeling that the proposed rule will impact small carriers significantly more than large carriers.  Many commenters predict that it will put owner/operators out of business and/or prevent new small carriers from entering the market. There is considerable anger that big carriers can absorb these costs and will benefit when small carriers go under. If the rule is adopted, several say that the federal government should provide exemptions or subsidies to help minimize the impact on small carriers.  Some commenters suggest ways in which equipment costs could be lowered.

Commenters also tend to think that the predicted benefits are overstated.  They challenge FMCSA’s calculations of cost saving from not having to complete RODs. More fundamentally, there is considerable skepticism that the rule will improve safety, even for the small portion of accidents that are fatigue-related.  On the other hand, some commenters identify many potential benefits from the proposed rule.
[dig]
Accuracy of EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) cost estimates. Several commenters challenge FMCSA’s equipment cost estimates. Much of this discussion focuses on FMCSA’s use of the Qualcomm unit to calculate likely costs, with commenters insisting that the market for devices and the range of possible compliance options is  broader than FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) recognized.  As for other elements of FMCSA’s estimates, however, commenters say the cost predictions are too low.  Four main areas were discussed:

(1) Useful-life estimates. One commenter (an owner the company that owns the rights to repayment of the mortgage principal plus interest of a trucking company with ten units) predicts that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) will need to be replaced sooner than the ten-year lifespan FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) uses—at least for carriers working in high temperatures and rough conditions where electronics fail faster. (More generally, he/she points out that the standard device warranty period is only three years, which suggests that ten years is much more than manufacturers’ confidence level.) This commenter also points out that many small carriers would have to purchase computers to store EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) data, a cost not included in the NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: the official document announcing and explaining the proposed rule estimate. Hence, FMCSA’s estimates are too low.

Three commenters raise concerns about what happens when an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) malfunctions or breaks down and needs to be repaired or replaced. Although the commenters assume that drivers would use paper logs if the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) stopped working, at least one is concerned that it might require taking a CMV Commercial Motor Vechicles out of service.

(2) Size of market/Available devices. Two commenters affiliated with equipment manufacturers/suppliers say estimates are too high because FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) used the Qualcomm unit; other, cheaper options could comply with the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) specifications. One commenter (an employee of an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) equipment manufacturer) explains, “The market for EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) providers is more comprehensive than the [NPRM] suggests, today this industry is extremely fragmented. While Qualcomm has had a dominant market share on-board communications, it can be argued there are more units from other vendors running e-logging applications. Other vendors in this space include Cadec, CarrierWeb, DriverTech, International Telematics, JJ Keller, PeopleNet, … Safefreight, Teletras, TransCore, Trimble, WebTech Wireless, XATA, Zonar.” Although most manufacturers currently produce fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies management systems of which the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) is just one component, “If the NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: the official document announcing and explaining the proposed rule passes, it is probable that FMS fleet management system vendors will offer a logs-only solution.” On the draft summary, another commenter asked us to include Navstar Technologies as a vendor.

Commenters within and outside the equipment manufacturer/supplier business predict that the proposed rule would likely result in an expansion of the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) manufacturing industry (especially, in the view of one commenter, if EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) are required for all) and anticipate that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) will become less expensive over time.

(3) Use of cell phone or GPS. The primary alternative to the Qualcomm unit discussed by commenters involves connection of an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) system to a cell phone. At least five commenters (including both carriers and equipment manufacturers/suppliers) praise the utility, cost-effectiveness and simplicity of being able to comply by using a multipurpose device like a smartphone or GPS—particularly for small companies. One commenter (an equipment manufacturer/supplier) points out that “the 395.15 and 395.16 component to the regulation[s] require engine connectivity[,] which most cell phone applications do not have,” but notes that “there are exceptions, such as Xata Turnpike which uses an application on the handset paired with a device (Route Tracker) tied to the engine.” This commenter also explained that the Xata Turnpike is paid for on a subscription model at $35 per month, plus a smartphone with a data plan. Another commenter (an equipment manufacturer/supplier) says that the JJ Keller system costs $199 with a $6 monthly fee and a smartphone data plan.

Commenters also discuss some potential complications or downsides to a cell-phone connected EOBR. One commenter (an owner the company that owns the rights to repayment of the mortgage principal plus interest of a trucking business with 134 units) points out that the “dead zone” phenomenon could potentially prevent the cell phone from reporting the information; however, these systems can store the data and transmit it when the vehicle returns to a service area. Another (an owner the company that owns the rights to repayment of the mortgage principal plus interest of a trucking business with seven units) notes some challenges about usability of a cell phone, particularly that the keypad is too small to allow quick and accurate input of data. On the other hand, he/she observes that different programming could be developed (“such as a touchscreen device that would allow you to just drag a bar across the times you were on duty driving and then going up to do sleeper berth. Allow it to zoom in and do it in blocks”) and notes that larger devices, such as an iPad-type device or a larger GPS Global positioning system (A space-based global navigation satellite system that provides location and time information anywhere on Earth) unit mounted on the dash, could solve this. The first commenter points out that cell phones are less expensive to replace and more readily available than a single-purpose EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) unit would be—although the second commenter notes that cheaper cell phones might be unreliable.

(4) Current EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) specifications. Four commenters address the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) specifications.  Two propose additions or changes that would reduce the cost of these units.

One commenter (an owner the company that owns the rights to repayment of the mortgage principal plus interest of a trucking business with 134 units) recommends that the specifications should be limited to requiring GPS Global positioning system (A space-based global navigation satellite system that provides location and time information anywhere on Earth) tracking, electronic HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) logs, and data transmission capabilities. He/she also urges that the specifications should allow equipment manufacturers to make their units compliant by providing software updates.  Telenav Track and Xoraas are examples of companies that should be able to do this. The other commenter (an owner the company that owns the rights to repayment of the mortgage principal plus interest of a trucking business with 7 units) favors relying on GPS Global positioning system (A space-based global navigation satellite system that provides location and time information anywhere on Earth) tracking with data transmission, rather than something more complicated that tracks motor use.  He/she says that GPS-only EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) are the simplest solution, and simplicity is more important than FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) may realize: “‘Simpler to operate than many mobile phones’ is a subjective statement. Many drivers violate their logs, but many of the drivers violate their logs because they can’t count or pass basic math classes either.”  Two people (an independent owner/operator leased to another carrier and a short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers independent owner/operator who has used an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) or other similar device) who did not comment elsewhere endorsed this comment.  The person who left this comment also says that GPS Global positioning system (A space-based global navigation satellite system that provides location and time information anywhere on Earth) tracking is more difficult to tamper with because even if a driver travels through an area with poor satellite connectivity, the system will be able to calculate the vehicle’s HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) when connection resumes.

This same commenter also urges that EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) specifications be reviewed and revised every five to ten years, on the basis of FMCSA’s estimated ten-year life.

A third commenter (the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) manufacturer employee who also made the point about a broader supplier market) points out that “All vendors in this space will need to make changes to both hardware and software to be compliant with 395.16 regulations.” He/she is concerned, however, that “it can be difficult to understand what solutions are compliant with what regulations (e.g. 395.15 vs 395.16).”

One commenter (an owner the company that owns the rights to repayment of the mortgage principal plus interest of a trucking business with seven units) suggests requiring that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) be pre-installed in new CMVs Commercial Motor Vehicles (vehicles owned or used by a business) by manufacturers.  Two people (an independent owner/operator leased to another carrier and a short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers independent owner/operator who has used an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) or other similar device) who did not comment elsewhere endorsed this comment.  A standardized system pre-installed will cut costs for production, training, use, and maintenance. This commenter recognizes that “the trucks that are already on the road would pose the larger issue” needing a more complex solution.

[dig]
Overestimate of savings from EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) use. At least nine people strongly criticize FMCSA’s estimates of savings to truckers and carriers from not having to complete RODS.

One (an owner the company that owns the rights to repayment of the mortgage principal plus interest of a trucking business with an unspecified number of units) criticizes the estimates as “…‘generalized’ or ‘median’ with no real accounting for the myriad real differences in carrier size, operating costs, or budget.”

Six emphasize that small trucking companies do not have clerical staff to manage RODS, so the estimated “savings” for these workers will never materialize. Many small businesses require drivers to complete this paperwork on their own.  Moreover, they do not compensate drivers for the time it takes to complete RODS.  One (a long haul/short haul independent owner/operator) explains that many drivers are compensated by miles driven, not by hour. Therefore, driver time “savings” are also overestimated.  This commenter explains his own situation: “I buy 12 log books a year at approximately $1 each for a total of $12 per year. Since I fill out, file, etc. the RODS Record of duty status (A logbook maintained by CMV drivers to track driving time (i.e., duty status) for each 24-hour period) myself there are no other costs.” Another (an owner/manager of a trucking business with an unspecified number of units) says that even for companies, the cost estimates of driver time for submitting RODS Record of duty status (A logbook maintained by CMV drivers to track driving time (i.e., duty status) for each 24-hour period) to employers is way too high. “[D]river time submitting [the RODS] is a non-starter. They tear them out of the book and fedex them to me along with BOLs.”

And, in any event, according to one commenter (an owner/manager of a trucking business with 7 units) the hourly rates FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) used to calculate  savings (driver  $29/hour; clerical staff $27/hour) are both overestimated by as much as $17-$19/hour in some companies.

One commenter (a long haul/short haul independent owner/operator) does his own cost/benefit analysis:  “I only spend about $12 a year on paper log books to comply with DOT’s Hour of Service (HOSHours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive)) regulations. Over a ten-year period, I will spend about $120, the DOT’s proposal requires me to spend $7850 over a ten year period.”
[dig]
Debate about industry-wide & societal costs and benefits. There is disagreement among commenters about whether EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) would benefit the industry overall.  Some commenters see benefits, especially if the devices offered more sophisticated services.  When it came to small carriers specifically, however, commenters uniformly predict a serious negative impact.

(1) Commenters predicting benefits. Some commenters argue that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) offer significant benefits.  One (affiliated with an equipment manufacturer/supplier) offered a list of benefits that his/her company has seen:

• Paper work time savings of 15 to 30 minutes for filling out the logs in the proper form. Reduction in supporting documents needed to prove logs or fuel tax.
• Easier to use than paper (through the level of automation provided).  Many current violations are from form and factor mistakes, which can be as simple as someone not writing down a line; such mistakes are virtually eliminated.
• Easier to keep up with HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) changes: Based on the complexity of the new rules, EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) help keep a driver straight on what is legal. Also, ability to change rule sets (e.g. US to Canadian) with a flip of a switch.
• Added time in a day: A minimum stop for paper log is 15 minutes; electronic logs can get down to the minute for an accurate stop. If drivers do many stops in the day, their legal drive time increases.
• Interoperability of working with other fleets: an electronic system can help move an owner/operator from fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies to fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies based on hours available. Send an electronic report to a dispatcher to prove the hours available.
• Detention billing: EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) give proof to location and time spent at a shipper’s yard. In the discussion, a big criticism to EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) is drivers having to start their day on duty while at a dock. Drivers should be billing the detaining company detention time for lost hours, and an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) will make this easier. By showing compliance with HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) laws, and having shippers understand what it takes to be a legal trucker, truckers can charge the rates deserved based on time and distance.
• Ability to prove adherence to Hours of Service laws: Legal truckers can be proud of their safety resume.  Also, on seeing the use of electronic logs, enforcement officials may not go into the details on log books. Many small fleets now will fail an audit. Electronic logs give support to documentation that paper log books will not.
• Warnings if time is low: a paper log book doesn’t help a driver know if hours are low. EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) quickly show available time left when driving. According to XATA’s customer base fleets that use e-logs have better fatigued management CSA scores.
• Keeping drivers on task: EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) can use as a productivity measuring tool. You can measure the time at stops, time on the road, and time in between. These accurate measures help show inefficiencies and time that is wasted.

(This comment was filed late in the comment period and so did not get any direct responses;  from earlier comments, some commenters consider some of these items (e.g., low time warnings; productivity measuring) to be sources of stress rather than benefits.)

Three commenters (two of whom are affiliated with equipment manufacturers/suppliers) predict that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) could have additional value if they are equipped with more features and function more like a fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies management system. One (an owner/manager of trucking business with 7 units) says, “we have a chance to be innovative. Why spend 1500 dollars on a unit that could be emulated onto a much cheaper device with other capabilities.”  Suggested features  of an enhanced EOBR  include: (i) For customers: enable accurate reporting of arrival/departure times, automatic notifications about possible delays, real-time tracking synced with google maps; (ii) For drivers: provide a view of upcoming roads, a monitor for speed limits, the ability to find restaurants, banks, rest stops, etc… ; (iii) For carriers:the ability to divert drivers (around traffic jams, road construction, bad weather) and to advise drivers about where to get fuel, encourage better routes (leading to increased fuel efficiency), automatic fuel tax reporting, black box reporting for accident reconstruction, driver scorecards, and allowing safety officers and dispatchers to view real-time HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) data to ensure compliance.

(2) Harm to small carriers. However, roughly a dozen commenters predict that costs of the rule would put small carriers and owner/operators out of business. There is considerable anger that big carriers can absorb these costs and will benefit when small carriers go under.  One commenter (a long haul/short haul trucking business with 2 units) predicts that the public will experience an increase in the cost of delivered goods because truck owners will have to pass on the cost of EOBRs.

One (an owner/manager of a trucking business with 7 units) uses FMCSA’s figures to estimate that the rule would cost his small business $15,785 for the first year, assuming no repairs or other problems. He/she criticized FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) for “present[ing] this as if it were some kind of miniscule cost for a small carrier,” and predicts that the industry will see fewer new small businesses because of these additional start up costs: “How does $2255 for the first year seem like a small cost to a guy or gal that is operating on thin margins most of the year, factoring and constantly worrying about maintenance fees and random fees that might be incurred?  What about the fact that the fuel costs change faster than the freight pays sometimes?”

Another (a long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers owner/operator leased to another carrier) asks how he/she is expected to increase profits with the addition of a $1600 expense for an EOBR.  A third commenter (a long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers owner/operator leased to another carrier) expresses confusion about who will have to pay for this equipment: the truck owner the company that owns the rights to repayment of the mortgage principal plus interest or the leasing carrier.

The expected impacts on small businesses are so bad that five people (an owner/manager of a trucking business with 7 units, a long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers owner/operator leased to another carrier, a long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers hazmat owner/operator leased to another carrier, an independent owner/operator leased to another carrier, and a short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers independent owner/operator leased to another carrier who has used an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) or other similar device) suspect that the proposed rule is intended to drive small carriers out of business. Most large carriers can afford these devices, and in fact many have already installed them in their fleets. These commenters fear that large carriers are using the government to crack down on small carriers, i.e., their competition.

One commenter concludes, in a comment that was endorsed by two people who did not comment elsewhere, that “These smaller carriers aren’t accountants and many times they are not the best organized people in the world either. They’re living from day to day and paycheck to paycheck. I’m not even talking about our operation; I’m simply speaking for the trucking industry in general. Do I think EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) are a good idea? Sure. Many of the things [FMCSA] report[s] are pretty accurate in my opinion. Do I think smaller companies should bear the burden of purchasing all of this equipment? No, I don’t.”

(3) Special burdens on small businesses that rarely use RODS. Three commentors identify particular burdens for small businesses that only occasionally operate in a context that requires RODS.

Two commenters identify themselves as farmers, ranchers, and custom harvesters. One has ten units that fall under RODS Record of duty status (A logbook maintained by CMV drivers to track driving time (i.e., duty status) for each 24-hour period) requirements for less than 15 days each year. Using FMCSA’s annual total cost estimate of $785/year for 10 years, she/he calculates that the rule would cost $52 each day (dividing $785 by 15 days). “With the 10 units it will cost me $520 dollars a day to move. All but 2 days a year I have to use RODS Record of duty status (A logbook maintained by CMV drivers to track driving time (i.e., duty status) for each 24-hour period) I average less than 350 miles a day. So while moving my 10 units in convoy the use of EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) is going to cost me $1 to $1.52 a mile.”  The other commenter (along haul owner/operator leased to another carrier) asks, “What about farmers and ranchers that haul cattle and hay a few months out of the year? What about the custom Harvestors who travel a circuit harvesting grain about six months out of the year?”

The third commenter (a short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers independent owner/operator) explains, “I work for a company that has four ¾ and 1 ton pickups pulling trailers with a GVWR of under 8,000 pounds. We cross state lines occasionally. The costs involved in this rule would all but put our division out of business…We may only need to drive CMV’s 3-5 times per month.” This commenter asks FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) for more exemptions to account for small businesses.

Another commentor echoes this request, reminding FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) of its responsibilities, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, to include flexibility and scalability for small businesses to reduce administrative and financial burdens.  He/she says that FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) has failed to comply with these requirements, and should provide small businesses with less burdensome alternatives. One example would be to “…use a scalable process, for example companies with over 100 trucks might find it economically beneficial to use EOBR’s.” He/she also asks that “as required by Executive Order 12866 paragraph (11), DOT Department of Transportation conduct and publish an analysis of the cumulative effect on small business of all their proposed regulations combined.”

[dig]
Skepticism about safety benefits. For several reasons, commenters  doubt that the predicted safety benefits will be achieved.  Some even argue that EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) use could increase fatigue-related problems.

One (an owner/manager of a trucking company with 10 units) argues, “All of this…does not even guarantee a reduction of fatigue related accidents. It just stiffens the reporting requirements of HOS. Most motor [carriers'] fatigue related accidents occur with no HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) violations.”

Two others question the validity of existing methods for measuring fatigue. One (a long haul/short haul independent owner/operator) is concerned that determinations of fatigued driving are subjective opinions and may be based on “political agendas” rather than sound evidence. He/she feels frustrated by how to “refute assertions of opinion that are masqueraded as statements of fact.” He/she cites “the legal decision regarding the Minnesota State Patrols flawed campaign against fatigue that was struck down by the courts in 2011.” The second (an owner/manager of a trucking business) questions the value of the crash study: “What the study failed to report were the number of trucks with EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) that were involved in accidents, compared to the total number of EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) equipped trucks and the number of non-EOBR equipped trucks compared to the percentage. In other words, the federal government is proposing that us truckers take on tremendous expense with no evidence that this really helps.” This commenter believes that most accidents have primary, secondary, and tertiary causes, and that the agency can choose how to present the data so that it supports stricter limits on truckers.  DOT Department of Transportation ought to provide “…‘peer-reviewed’ scientific studies that provide facts about how to measure fatigue, how much fatigue actually costs, and what are the true costs of this…” regulation.

A different reason for skepticism about safety improvement come from two commenters who say they have talked with drivers who used EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) and were able to manipulate them. “EOBRs know when you are driving, but not necessarily when you are working and not driving.”  A third person (an independent owner/operator leased to another carrier) who did not comment elsewhere endorsed one of these comments about the ability to manipulate EOBRs.

Two commenters argue that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) may actually increase the likelihood of tired drivers. One explains that “Under the current rules, a driver can plan, schedule, and execute his routes based on his/her understanding of the route (driving in some terrains and weather conditions can be more fatiguing than others), equipment, type of load, weather, and other factors. Under the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) scheme proposed by DOT, drivers will essentially be required to drive even when they know they are tired. Since companies and the government will be monitoring every aspect of their driving, companies will most likely employ drivers that can ‘max out’ the hours allowed by the government, drivers will be forced to drive even if they know they are tired.” This commentor urges DOT Department of Transportation to study safety results of drivers who are required to drive when they know they are tired, but due to financial and regulatory rules must continue driving. He/she offers a possible solution: “Many have advocated for [a] split sleeper berth provision that would allow the driver to use his/her own professional judgment to determine fatigue.”
[dig]
HOS and EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) inflexibility. One commenter (an owner/manager of a trucking business) describes a “frequent” scenario in which small carriers paid to haul freight booked by large companies suffer when circumstances out of their control push drivers to violate HOS.  When the large company books the job, “there is little connection between trucker and shipper.” Then, because the small company’s driver has no connection to the shipper, he/she is “often unable to demand payment for extended delays at the shipper or receiver… Freight brokers have no incentive to pay truckers for delays—which often can amount to a day or a night—because they don’t have a connection to the trucker…Shippers are not required, nor do they feel any compunction to pay for this time. As a result, drivers often refuse to log this time because they must turn miles. No miles, no pay…This is in my experience, is the biggest impediment to fatigued driving. If shippers take up 25% of a driver’s valuable work time[,] the driver must make up for it by pushing the limits of his or her endurance.” The problem is more serious because small carriers “often must accept lower rates—the companies booking the freight take 25% off the top.”  This commenter suggests that the best way to prevent fatigued driving is to resolve this problem: “Make sure that all [drivers’] hours are compensated and they will stop violating HOS.”

[dig]
Government subsidization of EOBRs.  Seven people urge some sort of a government subsidy for the purchase of EOBRs. One  compares it to the government helping citizens switch from antennae TVs to digital cable.  Several different ideas are proposed.

One commenter suggests a one-time grant for companies with fewer than fifteen trucks.

Another proposes a subsidy that works “as a cooperation with manufacturers of the vehicles on any new vehicles that enter the market. A standard EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) system would need to be introduced to cut costs and keep it consistent across the board. This would cut production costs as well as training costs in relation to safety officers inspecting the EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) and what to expect. If the EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) are always the same they know exactly what they’re doing when they inspect one-and so will the drivers and everyone else in the industry.” With respect to existing carriers, this commenter thinks the three-year compliance time is reasonable and should apply to all carriers “as long as enough time is allowed for the smaller fleets to get the subsidies or anything else they could get to help pay for the equipment, install it and train their drivers in its use.”

One commenter, a provider of GPS Global positioning system (A space-based global navigation satellite system that provides location and time information anywhere on Earth) fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies management solutions, is concerned that many carriers that have already purchased tracking devices will be non-compliant under the new rule.  He/she recommends that the government offer a credit to such businesses.

Four commenters note the recent NAFTA agreement regarding Mexican drivers.  Three insist that the US government should subsidize EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) for US truckers if they are going to subsidize EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) for Mexican truckers. The fourth is more broadly critical: “It is…my understanding that all of us American truckers will be paying for all of the Mexican truck’s EOBR’s because Obama has mandated it to be so. Now, in addition to me paying for my truck and the Mexican trucks, they will come up here burning cheaper fuel and charging cheaper rates and competing against me in an unfair way (mainly because the US Government is subsidizing them)…”

Finally, one commenter (an owner/manager of a trucking business) suggests a different kind of incentive:  “Offer a reduction in safety scores if companies voluntarily go to an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) system…I would bet that if FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) allowed a rollback of some, or all of the points for fatigued driving, that many companies would jump at the chance and voluntarily begin EOBR.”
[dig]
Concerns about over-regulation. Several commenters  express anger about this proposal in particular and over-regulation of the trucking industry in general. Commenters describe themselves as feeling “harassed.” “It appears to me that the US government wants American trucking to cease operating and be taken over by foreign interests…” Others describe the government as “Big Brother.” One says that this proposed rule is one reason why very few owner the company that owns the rights to repayment of the mortgage principal plus interest operators Self-employed commercial truck drivers or small businesses that operate trucks for transporting goods over highways for their customers trust FMCSA, and that regulations like this unfairly target trucks rather than all motorized vehicles.

Four people (three independent owner/operators and one owner/manager of a trucking business with two units) worry about additional regulations and costs that the trucking industry faces. “We already are penalized by having to sit for hours at shippers without pay. We are paid by the mile but our miles are limited by hours of service, shippers whims, inspections in every state we pass through…long lines at weigh scales, speed limits, mandatory stops, etc…” These regulations and costs include “registration, authority, process agents, IFTA stickers, UCR, 2290 Highway Road Use, fuel taxes, ad valorem tax, insurance, drug consortium, enforcement penalties, self-employment tax, elimination of the 11th hour of service, TWIC cards, cell phone prohibitions, no idling laws, mandated rest breaks, California CARB rules, new rules for fuel efficiency, and the proposed 1099s.”

Comments question who would benefit from the sales of this equipment. At least seven people express concern about how the proposed rule would benefit Qualcomm. One (an owner/manager of a trucking business) complains, “There is an obvious connection between the forced implementation of the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) and Qualcomm and other device manufacturers.” Six others (all owner/operators or owners of small trucking companies) believe there is a pro-Qualcomm bias in the rule. One of these (a long haul/short haul owner/operator) makes specific recommendations on this point, including the removal of references to Qualcomm from the rule, a review of DOT/FMCSA employees for connections to Qualcomm, and a prohibition against DOT Department of Transportation employees going to work for Qualcomm for at least two years.

Read what commenters have said about their personal experiences relevant to the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule here.

This post got 11 comments from 5 people; moderators responded 6 times.

Commenters included one independent owner/operator, an owner/operator leased to another carrier, an owner the company that owns the rights to repayment of the mortgage principal plus interest of a trucking business, a CMV Commercial Motor Vechicles owner/manager with ten vehicles/units,  and a member of an advocacy group interested in this rule. Two stated they had previously used or where using an EOBR, AOBRD, or fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies management system.  Another person (a short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers independent owner/operator who has used an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) or other similar device) who did not comment elsewhere endorsed a comment.

[dig]
Overview. Although there were not a large number of comments on this post, commenters give a lot of good, on-the-ground details about problems the proposed rule could cause small operators.  Commenters are skeptical that they will see much offsetting savings from changes in supporting documents rules—and some even predict greater costs.

As in other posts, there is a lot of disbelief that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) will increase safety enough to justify their cost and intrusion on truckers’ privacy.  There is even an argument they may decrease safety if drivers are constantly stressed about time.
[dig]
Skepticism about the savings from supporting documents changes. One commenter does not understand how drivers would have to keep fewer documents if they still have to keep documents for on-duty non driving and off-duty status.  “How’s this a ‘big’ advantage compared to how much it’ll cost?”

Another commenter (an owner the company that owns the rights to repayment of the mortgage principal plus interest of a trucking business with ten vehicles) worries that “private carriers like myself” simply do not generate the kind of supporting documents that would be required, in the ordinary course of their business.   He/she gives details:  “My trucks transport my own equipment from farm to farm in the western US and rarely see urban areas or interstate corridors where more supporting documents can be generated. Most [fueling] is done a day or more in advance to a RODS Record of duty status (A logbook maintained by CMV drivers to track driving time (i.e., duty status) for each 24-hour period) trip and the trip is completed before [fueling] is required again. We rarely stop at truck stops since they are not typically on our routes.  Most purchase receipts, port of entry permits, and scale tickets are only date stamped not time stamped. We travel in convoy so all expense receipts are recorded as one receipt for 10 drivers. What advantage we do have is [that] the management responsible for the collection of documents and a compliance review is also travelling with all the drivers using RODS. So lack of management control of drivers HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) violations is impossible since our management is traveling with our drivers and in control of generating supporting documents. Most of these documents are for other operations in a business so copies will have to be made to keep them in a separate file to be sure they are available for a compliance review. This substantially increases the size and cost of the file required for HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) duty records.”  This commenter worries that FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) has not adequately considered the additional costs for small companies of having to maintain these documents.  He/she also objects that the proposed regulation “assumes that the driver and motor carrier A person providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation. The term includes a motor carrier’s agents, officers and employees is guilty of HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) violations unless they prove without a reasonable doubt they are innocent.”
[dig]
Time for submitting duty records. One commenter insists that the 24 hour requirement to submit the supporting document is too short when compared with the 13 days the drivers used to have.  This requirement would actually discourage him from submitting the document electronically.  He suggests 48 hours.

[dig]

Skepticism about safety benefits. Several commenters emphatically dispute that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) would increase safety enough to justify the cost to truckers, especially at a time when “money is tight for everyone.”

One emphasizes that according to FMCSA’s own data only a small number of accidents are fatigue-related; EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) would add another cost to the company or owner the company that owns the rights to repayment of the mortgage principal plus interest operator A self-employed commercial truck driver or a small business that operates trucks for transporting goods over highways for its customers “without a positive reasoning.”  This commenter challenges FMCSA’s belief that the number of fatigue-related crashes is really 10-15% rather than the reported 1.4%: “the keyword I am focused on is ‘believes’  I can do the same thing. I ‘believe’ that the number is lower than 10-15%—so who is right? At any cost to the driver—without any ‘real’ hard evidence—is uncalled for.”

A second commenter uses the 2009 data to calculate that even using FMCSA’s assumptions, only about 40 of 3300 lives lost in CMV Commercial Motor Vechicles related crashes would be in fatigue-related crashes.  He/she believes this is not the kind of safety improvement that justifies electronic monitoring of drivers:  “Now I do understand that 1 life is too many.  But the FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) is more about ending a truckers freedoms than they are about safety.”  This commenter thinks that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) are like the government requiring people to carry traveling papers.

A different reasoning comes from a third commenter (an independent/owner operator):  “Chronic HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) violations are almost always instigated from the corporate office and dispatch/operations personnel. Penalizing the repeat offenders is a good common-sense policy. However, requiring ALL carriers to install EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) devices is costly and unnecessary. The cost/benefit statements are overstated, and obviously favor the sellers/administrators of the technology. The current system, with appropriate enforcement, works very well for the majority of carriers who believe in observing the law.”   At the request of the moderator, this commenter elaborated:  “EOBR are costly in the sense that they offer no ROI for the operator. While they may reduce some of the administrative cost(s) for a large operation, they will only create an unnecessary layer of responsibility for the small operator; one that is already being adequately filled via log books and proper enforcement procedures. Tech providers and support personnel will be the true beneficiaries of an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) mandate…  I wish I could give you an in-depth, guided tour of this business that brings you your life each day. You would be surprised at how honest and efficient most people are in the face of nearly overwhelming odds, and how completely unnecessary the deployment of EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) technology is for all but the most habitual offenders of the HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) rules.”  Another user (a short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers independent owner/operator who has used an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) or other similar device) who did not comment elsewhere endorsed this comment.

Finally, one commenter argues that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) may even reduce safety: “A driver is going to be giving an ETA to the receiver that is going to be mathematically possible time wise without much extra to spare, forcing a driver to be more aggressive in order to even have a chance of making it, and will constantly be detracted by stressing over time. The FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) are discussing making it illegal to handle a cell phone in a truck calling it a distraction. Now they are going to force another piece of electronics in your cab instead.”

Read what commenters have said about their personal experiences relevant to the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule here.

This post got 20 comments from 12 people; moderators responded 11 times.

Commenters include primarily people who identified themselves as owner/operators and a few owners of trucking businesses. Several of the owner/operators have a lease arrangement with other carriers. One owner the company that owns the rights to repayment of the mortgage principal plus interest of a trucking business manages 11 vehicles. Several commenters state they had previously used an EOBR, AOBRD, or fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies management system. One commenter is a member of an advocacy group interested in this rule, and two identified themselves as EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) equipment manufacturers/suppliers.
[dig]
Overview. Almost all comments are negative about mandatory EOBRs. Commenters are very worried about what happens if the device fails, or if the device or the truck electronics are damaged by enforcement officials trying to access the data. One commenter (a long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers owner the company that owns the rights to repayment of the mortgage principal plus interest operator A self-employed commercial truck driver or a small business that operates trucks for transporting goods over highways for its customers leased to another carrier) says, “With paper we stop and get a new book. When these stop working we will be down with no way to work till they get fixed. [H]ow can we live?”
[dig]
Back-up Procedures. There is obviously some confusion about how to comply with HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) logging requirements if the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) fails. (Current regulations require that a driver reconstruct RODS Record of duty status (A logbook maintained by CMV drivers to track driving time (i.e., duty status) for each 24-hour period) for the past 7 days in the event of an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) failure and then keep a handwritten RODS Record of duty status (A logbook maintained by CMV drivers to track driving time (i.e., duty status) for each 24-hour period) until the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) is fixed.) Several commenters discuss this point.

One commenter (a long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers user of an an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) and an equipment manufacturer/supplier) downloads records monthly to a DVD stored at home. With the JJ Keller unit this can be done with a smart phone. The GPS Global positioning system (A space-based global navigation satellite system that provides location and time information anywhere on Earth) sender unit is $199, with a monthly fee of $6.00 to use on a smart phone. All in all this commenter pays $75.00 for everything on his smart phone. According to this commenter and another who agrees, when the system is linked, you can talk on the phone while it serves as an EOBR, but you cannot text.

One commenter (an independent owner/operator of a long haul/short haul trucking business with 2 units) sees a problem in using a cell phone in this way. What if someone else, such as the driver’s spouse or the off-duty driver on a team truck, were using the cell phone in the truck? “Tracking of the cell phone could only indicate GPS Global positioning system (A space-based global navigation satellite system that provides location and time information anywhere on Earth) of the cell phone, but not the drivers’ use of it in these circumstance.” This commenter is also concerned with disabling texting while the phone is acting as an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) if there were a second person in the truck who wanted to use the phone.

Two commenters specifically express frustration that FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) would mandate EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) use without having in place specific guidelines of what to do in the event the device stops working.
[dig]
EOBR Product Reliability and Life Expectancy. The discussion around the potential for device failure prompts one commenter (an officer of an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) equipment manufacturer/supplier) to discuss the life expectancy of a typical EOBR.

He/she reflects on FMCSA’s use of Qualcomm’s ten year device lifetime estimate. According to the commenter, trucking companies expect EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) to last at least the length of their trade cycle for the vehicle—five to seven years—so the ten-year estimate “may be on the long end of the cycle.” Most warranties from the major EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) vendors are three years, although he/she has seen warranties as high as seven years, and as low as one year.

[dig]

Device Failure. One commenter thinks there should be different treatment depending on whether the device “falls apart on its own.” If he/she buys a less expensive EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) would he/she be prosecuted when the less reliable EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) breaks? To prevent the somewhat double punishment for purchasing a cheaper product, there should be an exception preventing prosecution when the device fails as a result of the product itself and not as a result of any type of intentional tampering.

One commenter reports a Canadian experience with speed limiters, in which the device was damaged when a law enforcement officer plugged into the device. This commenter raises the issue of proper training for officers to learn how to work with the EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) to prevent them from causing possible damage to the system. To illustrate the point, the commenter notes court cases in Canada where enforcement officers caused damage to the product when they plugged into it. This is particularly important in light of one commenter’s question about whether device tempering will be checked for at roadside inspections.

[dig]

HOS Requirements and EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) Inflexibility. Several commenters are concerned and angry that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) will force drivers to comply with the strict letter of the HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) rules even in situations where the purpose behind the rules is not affected and the situations are out of the driver or carrier’s control. (These concerns about EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) inflexibility appear in other posts too). And, as in other posts, commenters raise the issue of necessity and economic impact: “At a time when the economy is struggling to recover from a horrible recession and truck statistics are the safest they have been in 50 years,” why require EOBRs?

One commenter (an owner/manager of a trucking business with 11 vehicles) emphasizes the importance of accounting for long, unexpected delays such as loading and unloading difficulties when calculating HOS; the logging rules should allow drivers to adjust for these delays. Another (an owner-operator A self-employed commercial truck driver or a small business that operates trucks for transporting goods over highways for its customers leased to another carrier) agrees: “These things only work in a perfect world where there isn’t traffic or weather or breakdowns or anything else that a driver has to deal with on a daily basis.” If some kind of allowance isn’t made for these delays and drivers are unable to drive because they are over hours, it will disproportionately impact small businesses who cannot afford to take trucks out of service for HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) problems.

At least three other commenters (a short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers independent owner/operator, a long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers owner/operator leased to another carrier, and a short haul/long haul owner/operator leased to another carrier) agree that this proposal will hurt small truckers more than large carriers and suspect that big trucking companies support for these proposals to run smaller truckers out of business. One chides FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) for proposing a rule that will “turn the drivers against each other.”

A commenter (a long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers driver and equipment manufacturer/supplier) recounts his experience using a unit that worked with his cellphone. There is an “off duty driving” category on the system that lets you move the truck for up to 20 minutes. But this doesn’t help the traffic problem; driving is always counted on the system and “if you are in a traffic jam in LA at rush hour you could lose 3 hours going only 50 miles.”

One commenter (a short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers independent owner/operator) questions how the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) would calculate HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) for certain categories of activities. For example, he takes his truck 23 miles each month to be serviced. How will the device count that time? This same commenter emphasizes that a big problem is carriers requiring the driver to put in unreasonable hours before and/or after driving. He/she also believes that some problems would be solved if companies would pay drivers for delays that are the company’s fault.
[dig]
General Thoughts on EOBRs. Several commenters speak generally about the use of EOBRs.

For example, one commenter (a long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers owner/operator leased to another carrier who has used EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) or similar devices) expresses frustration that FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) would force owner/operators to use EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) and then in this rule turn around and ask what the repercussions should be when these same individuals tamper with their own devices. A second commenter (an owner the company that owns the rights to repayment of the mortgage principal plus interest of a long haul/short haul trucking business with 2 units) agrees with this comment. The first commenter believes that requiring EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) as an enforcement mechanism amounts to an invasion of privacy and is a Fourth Amendment violation. He/she challenges the safety rationale and says the proposal is inconsistent with President Obama’s call for less burdensome and costly rules.

A few commenters suggest that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) will only make things more complicated, not less so. For instance, one commenter states that after all these rules, “the only person who will be qualified to drive a truck would have to have the knowledge of a lawyer.” He/she believes that the proposed rule has more to do with controlling the industry than it has to do with safety.

Two commenters insist that the government should supply EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) for free. One suggests paying for this with money saved from decreased law enforcement costs. (He/she suggests that the number of enforcement personnel could be reduced because HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) violations revealed through EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) could be monitored by satellite and citations sent in the mail). The second commenters argues that “the US taxpayers will be paying for the NEW Mexican driver EOBR’s in the Crossborder Program, so why not pay for ours?”

Read what commenters have said about their personal experiences relevant to the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule here.

This post got 4 comments from 4 users; moderators responded 3 times.

Commenters included two CMV Commercial Motor Vechicles drivers, one long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers and one short haul; an owner the company that owns the rights to repayment of the mortgage principal plus interest of a trucking business with two vehicles; and an owner/operator leased to another carrier. Two of the commenters had experience using an EOBR, AOBRD or fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies management system.
[dig]
Overview. The few commenters on this post were divided. One commenter believes, from his/her own experience, that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) are good for drivers but can put companies in a less favorable competitive situation because non-EOBR carriers push their drivers to violate HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) rules. As a result, this commenter favors a short compliance period. Another commenter, however, doubts that enough devices can be manufactured in a short time period. (Neither of these commenters self-identified as working for a device manufacturer.)

Other more general comments on this post criticized the proposed rule as unreasonably expensive and intrusive.
[dig]
Three years transition period. One commenter (a long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers driver who has used an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) or similar device) says the proposed three years compliance time is too long because it gives a big advantage to companies that wait to change over from paper logs: “I have a friend working for a company [that still uses paper RODS] and his company can make promises to customers about delivery times that our company cannot because those drivers still have more flexibility in being able to turn in log sheets that look legal even though they do not match the exact schedule that they operated.” This commenter’s experience is that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) are a benefit for drivers: “Having EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) has taken all the pressure off the drivers where I work to meet impossible scheduled delivery and pick up times and put that responsibility back in the office where it belongs and has forced the company to talk to shippers and explain to them why we couldn’t run the way we used to and to get better flexibility from the shippers and then it was up to the office staff to run the trucks efficiently so the trucks would pay for themselves and as a result, more often than not now I am making bigger pay checks than with the old operating system and I am getting more rest than ever. My friend can not always say the same.” (Further details are on the Personal Experiences page.) So he/she suggests that all carriers should have to comply within 6 months.

Two commenters say three years is about right. One argues that not enough units could be be manufactured in six months to equip all trucks that would need them. The other commenter who agrees with the three year timeline also comments that the same three years time period should be applied to all fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies sizes.
[dig]
Other concerns. One commenter (an owner the company that owns the rights to repayment of the mortgage principal plus interest of a long haul/short haul trucking business with two vehicles) predicts the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule will end up being like TWIC: “there was a big oh effort made to encourage us to get TWIC. We still don’t have it, and never will. Those who spent the $132.00, really have no better option of getting loaded … Their money was spent merely as the result of a scare tactic that you will not be able to make it unless you have it.”

Another commenter (a long haul/short haul driver) expresses a common frustration that, especially for small carriers, strict HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) compliance and profitable operation is almost impossible: “Do you think shippers care about safety? All they care about is getting their freight delivered. … Simply put you can’t deliver freight legally with all the uncertainty out there on the road, there’s too much to account to just run so many hours and ensure so much deliver.” This commenter reiterates the concern that the rule will help large carriers by putting small operators out of business.

Read what commenters have said about their personal experiences relevant to the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule here.

This is a summary of discussion on the “Who Would Have to Use An EOBR” post between February 6 and May 13. (On that date, the post was closed to further discussion.) This summary was written by the Regulation Room team based on all the comments people made. This version is a DRAFT. We need YOUR help to make sure that nothing is missing, wrong, or unclear.

Important dates:

May 14-22:  Comments can be made here on the draft
May 21-22:  Regulation Room team reviews comments and revises draft
May 23:  Final Summary of Discussion is posted on Regulation Room and submitted to FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) as a formal comment in the official rulemaking record.  (May 23 is the last day of the official commenting period.)

Things to keep in mind as you read through the draft summary and make comments:

1. The goal here is to give FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) the best possible picture of all the different views, concerns, and ideas that came out during the Penalties/Enforcement discussion.  This is NOT the place to reargue your position or criticize a different one.  Focus on whether anything is missing or unclear, not whether you agree or disagree.
2. Rulemaking is not a vote. FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) is not allowed to decide what to do about EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) based on majority rule.  (Why? See Effective Commenting)  Approximate numbers are provided in the summary to give FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) a sense of the frequency of views, concerns, and ideas.

To help us make Regulation Room better, please take this SHORT survey on your experience.  (If you’ve already taken the survey on using RegulationRoom for the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule, please don’t take it again.)

[dig]

Who participated?

This post got 102 comments from 48 users; moderators responded 53 times.

Commenters included a dozen people who identified themselves as CMV Commercial Motor Vechicles drivers (the majority being both long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers and short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers drivers), several hazardous materials drivers, and one bus/motorcoach driver.  Nine said they were independent owner/operators and eleven were owner/operators leased to another carrier.  Twelve said they were owners or managers of trucking businesses.  One of those said they had 70+ units. About half of the commenters had used an EOBR, AOBRD, or fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies management system.  Two commenters are interested members of the public, and one was a member of an advocacy group interested in this rule. One identified himself/herself as working for an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) equipment manufacturer/supplier.

[dig]

Overview.  This post had the most discussion, with commenters raising issues that appear in the other posts as well.  The vast majority of commenters oppose the proposed rule.

Most commenters believe that the proposed rule will not increase safety—or, at least, think FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) cannot show that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) will increase safety, or that the amount of increased safety is worth the cost (especially to smaller operations). They insist both that there is a lack of data about fatigue and that existing data about accidents do not support the need for such a drastic rule.  They also question the percentage of drivers who are not complying now: The rule will not increase safety if most drivers are already complying, and the ones who are not complying are already subject to the new habitual offender rule. Some point out that there are various ways to manipulate EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) and believe that drivers/carriers determined to violate the HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) rules will still find ways to do so.  Finally, some argue that the stress of being constantly monitored and of the economic burden of more costs in a marginally profitable industry will actually decrease safe driving. Many are insulted that FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) assumes they are breaking the law and and is proposing to treat them in the same way as habitual violators.

Cost is a huge concern, with commenters worried that the economy is already weak, and that the trucking industry is facing other rising costs, especially for fuel.  Small carriers are especially alarmed, believing that the added cost would finally put them out of business.

Several commenters emphasize that an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) mandate will only work if the federal government also changes other aspects of trucking industry regulation. These commenters are divided on whether the proposed rule is a good idea, but all of them are adamant that broader regulatory reform is needed.  They identify shippers and receivers, who neither understand nor respect the HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) rules, as the main problem. Shippers and receivers expect truckers to arrive or leave at specific times, whether or not they are meeting their own commitments about being ready to load or unload, and they don’t allow for any flexibility so that the drivers can comply with HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) rules.  This forces drivers to rush to their destinations, risking HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) violations.  Some also blame carriers for pressuring, and even helping, their drivers to violate HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) rules. These commenters say that everyone associated with a shipment should have responsibility for HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) compliance. Adopting only an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) mandate, without dealing with these bigger issues, will unfairly put all the stress and responsibility on drivers’ shoulders.

[dig]

Safety. About two dozen commenters argue that the proposed EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) mandate either will not improve highway safety at all or will actually lower it.  Two commenters predict that safety will be increased.

1.  Optimism about safety benefits.  One commenter (a 23-year veteran of the trucking industry who is a long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers hazmat owner/operator) believes the rule will mean less paperwork for driver and company and get drivers to  “operate by the book, which will increase safety.”  However, he/she couples this prediction with a proposal for two changes in existing regulations:  “The first is that the shipper loads the truck and consignee unloads. In our present state, there is no reason for a driver to be required to do anything but drive. The second is to lose the 70 hour recap for longhaul drivers and replace it with a system of mandatory 1.5 to 2 days off for every week out. [T]he issue of recapturing lost sleep has been debunked. Better to enable the driver to recuperate at home rather than try to stretch it out while on the road.  With this in mind, 10 hrs/day is plenty of workload for the average driver due to the increased amount of mental stress as opposed to old style physical stress in the past.”

The second commenter (an owner/manager of Gorski Bulk Transport, a trucking business with 70+units) draws on his/her company’s experience with EOBRs: “Providing you are a company that educates and monitors your fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies you have nothing to worry about with EOBRs. A lot of the fear of EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) seems to stem from a lack of good practices following the HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) in the first place, maintaining safe and operational vehicles and having to be accountable for everything in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation handbook. Drivers and the Company’s they work for need to truly understand what is required by law when operating a trucking operation. Before CSA and EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) there was no universal USA wide to understand or score carriers. We’ve heard from many companies that CSA makes it a lot clearer what they are buying into.”

2.  Skepticism and (pessimism) about safety benefits. Most commenters believe that the proposed rule will not increase safety–or at least that FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) cannot show that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) will increase safety, or that the amount of increased safety is worth the cost (especially for smaller operations).

Several commenters argue that the safety statistics for CMV Commercial Motor Vechicles drivers do not support the prediction that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) will increase safety.  One (a safety consultant to the trucking industry who has one vehicle and who has used EOBRs) points to declining accident rates and states, “This industry has proven over the past few years that safety and product delivery can work well together.  It does not need any higher dollar technology to achieve good safety.”  Another (a short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers driver) argues, “The DOT Department of Transportation admits in Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 64, that the Agency is not aware of any published information that demonstrates that the specific mandate imposed has contributed to any discernible benefits in safety.” He/she points out that lawbreakers will always find a way around new regulations. A third  (a long haul/short haul hazmat owner/operator leased to another carrier) quotes statistics published in Landline Magazine: “As miles traveled increase, the 2009 fatality rate of 1.13 deaths per 100 million miles traveled was the lowest since 1950. Highway deaths totaled 33,808 in 2009, and despite a 9.7 percent decrease over the previous year.” A fourth (a long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers owner/operator leased to another carrier who has used EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) or similar devices) links to DOT Department of Transportation statistics showing that truck related accidents were down 20% from 2008 to 2009 (a number that the commenter says does not take into account accidents that non-truck drivers caused, which the commenter says is 75% of total truck accidents). Combined with steadily declining numbers of truck accidents since 1997, this shows that FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) does not have the facts on its side. Another commenter (an interested member of the public) points out FMCSA’s admission in the cost/benefit study that HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) “cannot be considered the cause for the recent decline in truck-involved fatalities and injuries” and that the impact of HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) regulations or compliance on highway safety cannot reliable be measured. “The conversation should go no further,” he/she asserts.

One commentor (an owner the company that owns the rights to repayment of the mortgage principal plus interest of one unit) argues that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) will not improve safety for all the drivers who are now driving legally: “If a driver does not break the rules and sticks to the HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) then there will be no safety issues because he or she will have done what they are supposed to without the EOBR.”

Another (an independent owner/operator who has used EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) or similar devices) says that many drivers do not realize the current HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) rule is a federal regulation and are willing to violate the rule to be able to keep consignee contracts. He/she predicts that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) will not change this compliance problem because carriers will teach their drivers “how to bypass the eobr’s recording of movement in a way that it will not show up.” Another cites a Landline Magazine article pointing out that the driver still has to manually input information, and claiming that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) are easy to tamper with.  A third commenter (a long haul/short haul driver who works for Sunset Logistics in Ft. Worth) describes how he/she believes the company is already manipulating e-logs. He/she says that drivers must show up for work 1 to 4 hours before an EOBR-equipped truck is ready for them to drive. Only then do the drivers log into a PeopleNet EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) system—but the hours they spent waiting for a truck are not counted toward their on-duty time. “The company says it is how it is done and we just have to ‘suck it up’ as drivers and ‘grow up’.” This same commenter gives an example of getting around the HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) rules even with EOBRs: When his truck broke down during one of his drives his carrier gave him a new truck and allowed him to log into the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) of that truck, restarting his HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) even though he had already driven for five hours.  Another commenter mentions that it is easy to log out of an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) and continue driving, although some devices have an alarm that goes off if the truck is moving and the driver is not logged into the EOBR.

One commenter  (a long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers owner/manager of a trucking business who has used EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) or similar devices) reiterates both the lack of good safety evidence and that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) are not foolproof.  He/she believes that the rule is too broad. “I drive and have a small company. My motto is if you cannot do it legal do not do it. I know there are a very few who do not run legal but I can assure you there will be those when you have EOBRs. Contrary to those who don’t know better these devices are not fool proof they depend on driver input and there can be mistakes. I just talked to a Ms. DOT Department of Transportation officer who told me that a large carrier who allows 6 mo. old drivers to become trainers often come in with their EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) logs that are all messed up, ie both drivers on duty, wrong driver on duty etc. So I don’t believe EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) will solve this problem… I do not believe that all companies should have to spend the money to buy and install these devises in their trucks. I do agree that companies who cannot operate in a safe manner should be forced to install these devises and but more importantly should be followed up with vigorously to insure compliance both in the back office and on the road.”  He/she expresses frustration:  “It is a sad day when all these special interest groups lobby to pass regulations on an industry that has shown consistent improvement in safety when such regulations are often burdensome and do not really solve the real problem.”

On the “real problem,” one commenter (an independent owner/operator with one vehicle) says the real safety concerns for the trucking industry are caused by a variety of distractions for drivers, including “too many road signs to read, poorly maintained roads, texting drivers, in use dvd players, computers in use, gps, cell phones, radar detectors, cb radios, xm radios , overhead or roadside electronic info boards, restricted lanes , cpap machines if you’re fat, 17″ necks, . . . auxilliary power units at $9000.00, . . . and finally the onboard hours of service Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive recorder.”

Another commenter (a long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers independent owner/operator with two vehicles) argues that if we are serious about safety we should require EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) on all vehicles, because there is no evidence proving that trucks cause more accidents than cars.

Finally, several commenters  predict the proposed rule will actually decrease safety, due to an increase drivers’ stress from having to use a new device that records everything they do from the bad economic effects the rule will have on the industry.  These commenters say that more stressed out drivers means less highway safety.  The added expense and stress for many smaller carriers and drivers will force them out of the industry because of cost, frustration, or both. Commenters (including long haul, short haul, and hazmat owner/operators, some of whom are leased to another carrier, and some of whom have EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) experience) point out that these drivers are generally more experienced and safer than the young drivers hired by larger carriers that can afford EOBRs. They predict that young, inexperienced drivers will push the HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) limits more because of low wages and efforts to beat the clock, leading to more accidents.

Moreover, two commenters (both owner/operators, one of whom is leased to another carrier) point out that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) cannot determine when a driver is actually fatigued. Therefore, EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) will not solve a major problem drivers currently face: They are often “legal” to drive because they have not reached the HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) limits but are still fatigued.  Yet they are pushed to start again because the electronics say they can legally do so.
[dig]

HOS and EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) inflexibility.  Many commenters explain that a major source of stress and worry about EORBs is the inflexibility of the current HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) system. EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) will add yet another layer of rigidity to the regulatory landscape.  (You can read these commenters’ personal experiences here.) Commenters fear that they will be forced to stop only a few miles from their destination or a safe place to stop. One commenter says that the government enforcement officers often make HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) issues worse because they do not allow drivers to stop many places that are safe to sleep (such as highway off-ramps) and give the drivers tickets if they do not move from these spots.  Others complain that there will be no way to take account of breakdowns, traffic jams and other problems, weather, or other circumstances out of their control.  Many are concerned that the result of EOBR-monitoring will be not only to force them to stop driving before they are tired but also to start driving again before they are fully rested – largely because dispatchers and employers will push them to get on the road again as soon as they are “legal” regardless of whether the driver feels rested.

Some commenters who use EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) do describe positive experiences. It appears that these are drivers working for relatively larger companies. One (a long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers driver) says that using a smart phone as an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) and GPS Global positioning system (A space-based global navigation satellite system that provides location and time information anywhere on Earth) has worked well for him and that he finds it easy to use.  Another (an owner/manager of a trucking business with 70 units) said that when EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) were introduced in his company, drivers had no complaints after a few months of getting used to the devices.  Instead, the drivers began to complain when they were forced to use paper logs in situations where there were computer problems.   A third commenter (a long haul/short haul hazmat driver) says that overall EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) make driving easier because the driver does not have to reach for a log book every time his or her duty status changes, and because law enforcement officers don’t question the records since everything is clear.  However, he/she also explains that it depends a lot on the driver’s situation and the kind of company:  “I drive for Wal Mart and use EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) it is a wonderful tool for the type of driving I do. However I think it will put a lot of hard working drivers out of business. Unless some rules are changed and enforced, the wait time loading and unloading will kill them. Also the time waiting for dispatch to give them their next load will be a problem. [FMCSA] cannot help with the latter but the loading and unloading is a major problem for drivers. I have sat a grocery store warehouse for up to ten hours waiting to get unloaded, when I was on time and did my part. With EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) this would kill my driving hours. Rules need to be put into force regulating the time they can hold the driver while loading and unloading.” He/she says that “In order to make money you have to keep moving.”

This problem with shippers and receivers is the most frequently mentioned concern about external factors that would force the drivers to bypass an EOBR’s recording system or face losing a contract.  One commenter gives the example of the company CH Robinson that charges a $350 fine on a $700 delivery if a carrier fails to make a delivery on time.  Drivers are not only under pressure to pickup and deliver goods within unreasonable timeframes, but also are often forced to sit for long periods of time while waiting to be loaded and unloaded.  In many situations, drivers are not paid for this waiting time, and commenters say that many carriers force drivers to falsify their HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) logs so that the waiting time will not be counted in their HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) driving time.  The commenter who uses EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) and likes them  points out that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) would stop this falsification, but unless this problem is resolved, the proposed rule will cost drivers thousands of dollars in lost driving time.  DOT Department of Transportation needs to “set maximum loading and unloading times and go after companies who violate [these times].”

Commenters made several suggestions for resolving some of these underlying problems with HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) inflexibility.  One (an owner/operator leased to another carrier) urges FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) to re-regulate the haul-rate so that drivers “won’t have to keep hauling dollar freight and pay for all this other stuff too.”  Another (a short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers hazmat driver who has been driving for 23 years) urges regulations that make shippers and receivers fully responsible for loading and unloading so that drivers are only responsible for driving.  This commenter would also like for FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) to change the “70-hour recap for longhaul drivers and replace it with a system of mandatory 1.5 to 2 days off for every week out [driving].”  He/she reasons that drivers are able to recuperate much better at home on the weekends than by trying to catch up on sleep while out on the road.  A third commenter (a long haul/short haul driver who has used an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) or similar device) suggests changing HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) rules to allow for 5 hours of driving time, 5 hours of docking time, and 14 hours of sleeping time so that drivers are not forced to do “everything.”

Another commenter (a long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers owner/operator leased to another carrier) proposes a completely different approach: “Eliminate the HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) [rules] and the proposed EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) for experienced drivers with satisfactory/good records, have them carry an ID card exempting them from HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) and EOBRs. Use the EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) and the HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) for new inexperienced drivers just out of school, and those with poor safety records. Use the EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) and the HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) for a training tool for new drivers and a consequence for drivers with a bad safety records.”

[dig]

Costs. Commenters are concerned with the costs of EOBRS, and small companies are especially concerned.

Commenters worry about the added costs of this rule on the “already hurting” trucking industry.  One (an independent owner/operator) says that the pay in this industry has dropped in recent years and another (an interested member of the public) points out how the “standard of living” and “quality of life” of drivers have declined.  Many commenters (independent owner/operators and/or small trucking business owners/managers) are worried and angry this would be another expense for an industry that has faced so many other increasing costs, including taxes, rising fuel, and many other regulations (including emissions regulations).

Commenters particularly complain of the impact on small businesses, with several saying the added expense would drive companies out of business.  One (a long haul/short haul, hazmat owner/operator leased to another carrier) estimates the rule would cost him $1,200-$2,000 upfront, with weekly costs of $40-60.  He/she complains that this would use up the money saved for his/her first vacation in years; if this commenter is forced to pay several thousand dollars to follow this rule, he/she will have to leave the trucking industry.  Another (long haul, short haul) agrees, saying that it’s already a struggle to pay bills and provide for his/her family without this added expense.  He fears that companies will have to fire drivers to offset the increased costs of mandated EOBRs. Another (long haul/short haul; passenger carrier, motorcoach) complains that this rule would cost more money for the companies that actually follow the laws.

Many commenters are upset and angry that the rule will disproportionately harm smaller companies.  One argues that only drivers that work for the large carriers like EOBRs. Another points out that smaller companies are already at a disadvantage compared to the larger companies, especially in terms of fuel costs since larger companies get better fuel discounts.  Another agrees that small businesses are already suffering from a “thin profit margin.”

Three commenters (all owner/operators leased to another carrier) are particularly concerned with the added costs of an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) to older, mechanical trucks.   One worries that his non-electronic truck would not support an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) and thus the rule would make his truck “worthless.”  Another fears that FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) will force people who drive these older trucks to buy a brand new truck or “do whatever it takes” to follow the new rule.  The third  says, “I don’t have a problem if we have to start using them but I’m not going to go 170,000 dollars in debt to be compliant.”

Several commenters predict that the costs would have to be passed on to consumers, driving up prices for fuel, produce, household goods, and manufacturing industry goods.  One, who works for a company that provides medical services to rural hospitals, predicts that the costs would be passed on to the healthcare industry.  He points out that many industries rely on trucking.  Another (an owner/operator leased to another carrier) worries that trucking companies will lose work when they have to pass along costs to consumers.  Several are concerned with how this rule would affect the currently “weak” and “fragile” economy.

One commenter suggests that instead of using EOBRs, FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) should look into using something similar to the Pikepass.  This commenter explains that the Pikepass is a device that is scanned when a driver travels though a toll and automatically charges the toll amount to the driver’s account.  This machine can scan the time a driver goes through the toll as well.  This commenter feels that a device like this could capture the information needed to monitor a driver’s HOS, but would not cause as many privacy concerns as the EOBR.

[dig]

Questioning motives for the proposed rule. Because they don’t believe FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) has shown safety and other benefits from EORBs likely to justify the large costs, several small carrier and independent owner/operator commenters think this rule is being proposed because of lobbying from EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) manufacturers.  Some suspect that large trucking companies, who are better able to deal with the new costs of EOBRs, are lobbying for this rule to drive out competition.  A few commenters even believe that the DOT Department of Transportation itself is profiting from this rule.

[dig]

The current EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) requirement is enough. Many commenters argue strongly that the current approach of requiring only habitual HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) offenders to install EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) is enough to keep drivers compliant.

For many commenters, being forced to use compliance devices and being placed in the same category as habitual violators is unfair and insulting.  Several (including owner/operators, long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers owner/operators leased to another carrier, short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers drivers, hazmat carriers, and carriers with a small number of units) say that treating all drivers like habitual violators would “punish the innocent” or presume that all drivers are “guilty.”  One compares the current habitual-offender rule to ankle bracelet monitoring devices sometimes used for criminals. He or she says that this is a great system for lawbreakers, but it would be unfair and intrusive for law-abiding motor carriers.  Three others view the proposal as analogous to putting someone on house arrest for a crime they did not commit.  This frustration is increased for those who conclude that FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) has not adequately justified the claims of safety improvement and other benefits as compared to the costs.  “The DOT Department of Transportation did not provide an adequate cost and benefit analysis due to a lack of adequate cost and benefit data, yet they are still pursuing an industry wide implementation of this new rule without conducting a cost and benefit analysis based from recent data as they stated they would.”

Several commenters (owner/operators and small carrier owners) insist that under the current system, violators—whom they say are only about 10% of drivers, usually driving for large carriers—will be caught, especially if FCMSA vigorously follows up on violations both in the back office and with drivers.  “If the big companies would spend what is necessary they would not be in the bottom 10% and would not have to install the recorders in their fleets, so why not bring them up to the level of the other 90% instead of dragging the 90% down to their level and in the process bankrupt a lot of good and compliant owner-operators.” Another (an independent owner/operator with three units) asks, “why should I, a compliant driver pay for the sins of a few?”

Finally, one commenter  (an owner/manager of a trucking business with ten units) points out that “CSA reporting has only been in place for one year and has not been given long enough to show its effects on industry compliance.  Carriers are becoming much more aware of the penalties to being deficient under CSA and how cost prohibitive being non-HOS compliant is.” Returning to the absence of data on the extent of the problem, he/she argues:  “If FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) could prove that most carriers were non HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) compliant, most carriers would already be required to have EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) under current rules. This is a huge negative industry cost with no increase in safety.”
[dig]

Short haulers. Two commenters specifically addressed whether short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers drivers should be included.

One (an owner/manager of a trucking business) worries that exempting short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers trucks will produce unfair strategic behavior from large companies:  “You are going to create a monster by exempting SH short-haul: generally, < 150 mi. from base for property carriers carriers. Large long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers companies will adapt to take advantage of the SH short-haul: generally, < 150 mi. from base for property carriers exemption. Example, I have terminals nationwide. I take a load from California, move it to my terminal within my SH short-haul: generally, < 150 mi. from base for property carriers limits drop it and another truck picks it up and does the same thing. By doing this I can get a load across American faster than a LH long-haul; generally >150 mi. from base for property carriers company, Because some of my ‘short Haul’ drivers will be able to cheat their logs. You have now created an unlevel playing field between the SH short-haul: generally, < 150 mi. from base for property carriers and LH long-haul; generally >150 mi. from base for property carriers companies.”

The other (an owner/manager of a non-trucking business with ten units) has a very different view:  “I harvest grain from Texas to Montana. Most of my trucking is on rural roads and exempt from HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) rules under 395.1k. However there are between 10 and 15 days a year where I operate under RODS. Requiring EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) for carriers that infrequently have to log hours will be a substantial addition burden in both cost and complexity of use than what over the road carriers will face under this rule. When I am moving under RODS Record of duty status (A logbook maintained by CMV drivers to track driving time (i.e., duty status) for each 24-hour period) there is very low probability of violating HOS. I am moving in convoy with up to 10 units and pulling oversized loads which can only move in daylight hours. All of my RODS Record of duty status (A logbook maintained by CMV drivers to track driving time (i.e., duty status) for each 24-hour period) trips except one is less then 440 miles. The EBORs rule is a one size fits all rule. Motor carriers People providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation. The term includes a motor carrier’s agents, officers and employees are not all over-the-road haulers carrying freight everyday across the country. There are a lot of utility trucks, farm trucks, and pickups that will be swept into this EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule even though most of their miles do not require RODS.”  The commenter estimates that if short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers drivers are included in the mandate the cost estimates will rise to $8 billion because 10 million drivers will fall under the mandate instead of the 2 million if only long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers carriers are covered.

Although he/she opposes including short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers drivers, the commenter also addressed how such a requirement should be structured if adopted:  “If EBORs are mandated there needs to be a clear line of who has to use them and how does not. This line has to be extremely clear to enforcement so there is no roadside misinterpretation of who has to comply. The idea of any carrier that has to do RODS Record of duty status (A logbook maintained by CMV drivers to track driving time (i.e., duty status) for each 24-hour period) more than 2 days a week must use EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) is too vague. Is that in just one week a year or all 52 weeks?  What if a carrier has to do RODS Record of duty status (A logbook maintained by CMV drivers to track driving time (i.e., duty status) for each 24-hour period) for 5 days in one week and never at any other time of the year. I would suggest that the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule applying to short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers carriers needs to be based on number of miles driven per year per power unit or total number of days per year requiring RODS Record of duty status (A logbook maintained by CMV drivers to track driving time (i.e., duty status) for each 24-hour period) or Number of miles per year requiring RODS. This metric could be based on information provided in an MCS-150 and then the CSA data could state whether a carrier has to be compliant with EOBRs.”

Another commenter on the draft summary expressed a similar concern by asking if  there will “be any allowances for apiary operations (bee keepers) that move colonies of honey bees between states for crop pollination and honey production.” This commenter noted that the movement takes place two or three times annually.

Read what commenters have said about their personal experiences relevant to the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule here.

This is a summary of discussion on the Privacy Concerns post between February 6 and May 13. (On that date, the post was closed to further discussion.) It was written by the Regulation Room team based on all the comments people made. This version is a DRAFT. We need YOUR help to make sure that nothing is missing, wrong or unclear.

Important dates:

May 14-22:  Comments can be made here on the draft
May 21-22:  Regulation Room team reviews comments and revises draft
May 23:  Final Summary of Discussion is posted on Regulation Room and submitted to FMCSA as a formal comment in the official rulemaking record.  (May 23 is the last day of the official commenting period.)

Things to keep in mind as you read through the draft summary and make comments:

1. The goal here is to give FMCSA the best possible picture of all the different views, concerns, and ideas that came out during the Penalties/Enforcement discussion.  This is NOT the place to reargue your position or criticize a different one.  Focus on whether anything is missing or unclear, not whether you agree or disagree.
2. Rulemaking is not a vote. FMCSA is not allowed to decide what to do about EOBRs based on majority rule.  (Why? See Effective Commenting).  Approximate numbers are provided in the summary to give FMCSA a sense of the frequency of views, concerns, and ideas.

To help us make Regulation Room better, please take this SHORT survey on your experience.  (If you’ve already taken the survey on using RegulationRoom for the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule, please don’t take it again.

[dig]

Who participated?

This post got 33 comments from 11 users; moderators responded 15 times.

Commenters included primarily people who identified themselves as owner/operators and a few owners of trucking businesses. Several of the owner/operators have a lease arrangement with other carriers. Three commenters stated they had previously used an EOBR, AOBRD, or fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies management system. Two commenters identified themselves as members of an advocacy group interested in this rule.
[dig]
General overview. The overwhelming majority of commenters on the privacy post are strongly against an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) requirement, with one commenter going as far as to condemn EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) as a form of Orwellian “Big Brother”—“[t]his could be the misguided use of this equipment.”

Several consider EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) as inflexible, overly expensive record keepers that raise concerns about privacy and harassment without creating substantial safety benefits to warrant widespread replacement of paper logs.  (Many complained that FMCSA’s own data on trucking crashes show there is no need for the rule.)  Also, several commenters are offended that an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) requirement means FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) distrusts drivers and is proposing to treat all drivers the same way as it now treats high safety risk drivers.

The main privacy concern was the amount of information collected by EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) and the way this information could be abused.  Many felt that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) would collect too much information and would be transferred in an insecure way.  (There was some uncertainty about just what data would be collected, especially since current fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies management systems collect more data than FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) would require.)  Also, many were concerned about allowing enforcement officials physical access to the inside of the truck and to the truck’s electronic equipment.

One commenter to this post did support the proposal because EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) could help keep better track of the drivers in his/her operation.

[dig]

Too much information collected. Several commenters are concerned about the types of information collected by EOBRs, believing that such information is not necessary to police HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) compliance. One commenter felt extremely uneasy with the lack of information regarding EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) in general and stated, “[f]or all we know, they could have listening devices installed within.”

One complains that recording vehicle speed would let the “EOBR police” come after him/her for speeding;  when the moderator pointed out that FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) was not requiring EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) to record speed, another commenter objected that it “only requires a little math” to figure out speed once location and time are recorded.  Another commenter similarly objects to collecting location data as unnecessary: He/she is highly suspicious of the motives for collecting such data, theorizing that DOT Department of Transportation might be paving the way for a “vehicle miles tax.”  This commenter believes that any data collection other than what is strictly required for HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) compliance (which he/she identifies as hours on-duty, off-duty, driving, and “no other information”) is an unnecessary expense that will burden small business owners; this commenter insists that “savings” to truckers from collecting other information should not be included in DOT’s cost/benefit estimates.

By contrast, one commenter (a “trucking business” with 7 vehicles/units)  is not opposed to “track[ing] our drivers.”  “We know that drivers can be a liability for smaller fleets because some of them think that after they get done with their assignments the truck is just their personal vehicle. I’d also love to know what route they are taking at all times and be able to easily divert my drivers with available information or even advise them where to get fuel without having to call them.”  This commenter notes that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) are limited in function as a tracking device compared to other technologies such as cell phones, which track people constantly.  It would take many more features for EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) to act as legitimate tracking devices—none of which DOT Department of Transportation has required.

[dig]

Potential misuse of data. Commenters are concerned about the misuse of EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) data by both authorized and unauthorized entities.

One commenter (a long haul/short haul owner/operator) worries that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) would actually cause more danger to truckers rather than increasing safety:  “The availability of the information that will be mandated in the proposed EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule is a treasure trove of information for criminal exploitation.  Even though the information required does not go to the GPS Global positioning system (A space-based global navigation satellite system that provides location and time information anywhere on Earth) grid coordinate level, all a criminal needs to know is the city where a truck got loaded. Shipping locations are well known within the transportation community.  If you tell me the city a shipment came from I can tell you the most likely contents of the load.  Truck hijackers will focus on trucks that have visited cities that ship pharmaceuticals, electronics, copper, aluminum, and other high value loads.  Wireless networks and/or have an external access point are generally not considered secure methods of data transmission.”   He/she makes three recommendations:

“A. DOT Department of Transportation conduct a study to confirm the security of the information from unauthorized users. If a law enforcement officer can read it via wireless or plug-in information, it is not secure. If wireless networks were secure the DOD would not prohibit their use for sensitive communications.
B. DOT Department of Transportation conduct a study to determine the number of truck drivers who will be killed or injured due to criminal exploitation of the security vulnerabilities of the proposed EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) system.
C. If an upgrade in the systems is require to make them more secure, those costs need to be included in the cost of the proposal.”

At least four commenters specifically express concern about government officials potentially misusing the information gathered by the EOBRs.  Mostly these concerns seem related to harassing over-enforcement, although one commenter worries that officials might provide the data to third parties or use the data as a way to monitor truckers beyond what is necessary to ensure compliance with the HOS.  He/she is also concerned that EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) checks could result in law enforcement officials conducting invasive physical searches inside vehicles: “The EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) are nothing more than a tool for law enforcement to use to come into my home away from home.”

One commenter points out that fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies management systems record more information that DOT Department of Transportation is requiring, and is worried that this information will also be accessible to official investigators.

One commenter had a different kind of concern:  Paper logs are used by drivers for as records for tax purposes. If EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) replace paper, would employers would have to give drivers copies of their log information monthly or yearly?

[dig]

Concerns about mechanics of enforcement.  One commenter reports talking with a state highway patrol officer who said they have no software for EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) and so can’t check them. Another commenter expresses concern about damaging the “delicate and expensive” electronic systems in modern trucks by officials “not properly grounding or improperly accessing the data.”  He/she provides a report of a Canadian case where a driver was concerned about possible harm to his truck’s electronic system and asked a law enforcement officer to sign a letter assuming damage liability before accessing a mandatory speed-limiting device. The officer refused and issued the driver a citation for non-compliance.  The trial court dismissed the citation.
[dig]

Skepticism about safety benefits. In addition to the concern about trucker safety from EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) data falling into the hands of hijackers, several commenters are very critical of the claim that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) will increase safety, and say that FMCSA’s own data don’t support the rule.  They complain that the rule will impose unnecessary and unjustified costs for little safety benefit.

They argue that driver fatigue, the rationale for strict compliance with HOS, is not the main culprit for truck crashes.  One points to the FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) webinar (Sept. 30, 2010) giving data that crashes have declined and that only 1.4% of trucking accidents are fatigue-related, and complains that FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) is “falsifying its own information to make it seem that new regulations” are needed.  Another also complains that the crash data are being “manipulated” and says it is “well known that about 70% of truck crashes were caused by a 4-wheeler.”  He/she says that the solution is to educate the public on safe driving rather than burden truckers with more costs.  A third says that the data can be found on FMCSA’s own website and this causes drivers to mistrust FMCSA. Other commenters agree that the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule would unfairly single out just some vehicles.

Several commenters argue that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) are being required for the wrong vehicles—namely, the ones not responsible for the accidents.  One is offended that rules that now require EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) for companies with high safety risk would be applied to drivers who are not unsafe law breakers.   Others express similar views that the proposal does not trust them to be safe drivers and responsibly recognize when they are fatigued.

One commenter points out that EOBRS will not necessarily reach the desired goal because drivers will still have to manually add any change of duty status.

A novel safety point was made by commenters who argued that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) can actually be used to make drivers drive when still fatigued.  Two recount personal experiences of using a Qualcom system for a carrier employer. Based on data from the system, one driver would be awakened by a dispatcher telling him/her to start driving again because the 10 hours were up, whether or not it was the middle of the night and he/she had gotten enough sleep.  The other reports being awakened by the dispatcher during the 10-hour break to ask how long before the break was over.  Another (who also has used EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) or similar devices in the past) agrees: “I also don’t need the ‘fatigue’ that will be created when the data from an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) is used to ‘micromanage’ my time.”

[dig]
Lack of compliance with FISMA. The commenter who raised concerns about wireless-transmitted data being intercepted for criminal/hijacker use argues that DOT Department of Transportation must conduct a study under the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 regarding the security of EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) data transfers.  Specifically, he/she makes the following recommendations:

“A. Prior to publication of any EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) regulation, the US DOT Department of Transportation must comply and document compliance with all aspects of the FISMA act to achieve system accreditation as discussed in the following paragraph:

‘Once the system documentation and risk assessment has been completed, the system’s controls must be reviewed and certified to be functioning appropriately. Based on the results of the review, the information system is accredited. The certification and accreditation process is defined in NIST SP 800-37 “Guide for the Security Certification and Accreditation of Federal Information Systems’.

B. Compliance with Federal Laws by DOT Department of Transportation is not optional it is mandatory. Additionally, the reason for information security is to protect individual truck drivers from the violence associated with criminal activity associated with the exploitation of vulnerable information by criminals.

C. Once the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) has been certified, accredited, and documented as required by “Guide for the Security Certification and Accreditation of Federal Information Systems”, the DOT Department of Transportation will need to republish the proposed EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) regulation to include all the additional costs associated with information security.”
[dig]

Concerns about inflexibility of EOBRs. Although not specifically about privacy, some commenters  echo concerns expressed on other posts that EOBRs would be difficult to use and cannot adapt to special circumstances that might occur without the driver’s being at fault or able to control them.  They are worried that an unexpected delay that occurs just as the maximum hours are up would cause the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) to record a violation without providing an opportunity to explain the situation.

Read what commenters have said about their personal experiences relevant to the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule here.

This is a summary of discussion on the What will this Cost post between February 6 and May 13. (On that date, the post was closed to further discussion.) This summary was written by the Regulation Room team based on all the comments people made. This version is a DRAFT. We need YOUR help to make sure that nothing is missing, wrong or unclear.

Important dates:

May 14-22:  Comments can be made here on the draft
May 21-22:  Regulation Room team reviews comments and revises draft
May 23:  Final Summary of Discussion is posted on Regulation Room and submitted to FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) as a formal comment in the official rulemaking record.  (May 23 is the last day of the official commenting period.)

Things to keep in mind as you read through the draft summary and make comments:

1. The goal here is to give FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) the best possible picture of all the different views, concerns, and ideas that came out during the Penalties/Enforcement discussion.  This is NOT the place to reargue your position or criticize a different one.  Focus on whether anything is missing or unclear, not whether you agree or disagree.
2. Rulemaking is not a vote. FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) is not allowed to decide what to do about EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) based on majority rule.  (Why? See Effective Commenting)  Approximate numbers are provided in the summary to give FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) a sense of the frequency of views, concerns, and ideas.

To help us make Regulation Room better, please take this SHORT survey on your experience.  (If you’ve already taken the survey on using RegulationRoom for the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule, please don’t take it again.)
[dig]
Who participated?

This post got 64 comments from 21 users; moderators responded 23 times.

Commenters included seven people who identified themselves as trucking business owners or managers with the number of vehicles/units ranging from two to 134.  Four were owner/operators leased to another carrier and four others identified themselves as independent owner/operators. One commenter was a driver of a bus/motorcoach and another was both a long and short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers driver. Several of the commenters stated they had previously used an EOBR, AOBRD, or fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies management system. Three commenters identified themselves as equipment manufactuer/suppliers. One commenter identified was an interested member of the public.
[dig]
Overview. Discussion was marked by a strong feeling that the proposed rule will impact small carriers significantly more than large carriers.  Many commenters predict that it will put owner/operators out of business and/or prevent new small carriers from entering the market. There is considerable anger that big carriers can absorb these costs and will benefit when small carriers go under. If the rule is adopted, several say that the federal government should provide exemptions or subsidies to help minimize the impact on small carriers.  Some commenters suggest ways in which equipment costs could be lowered.

Commenters also tend to think that the predicted benefits are overstated.  They challenge FMCSA’s calculations of cost saving from not having to complete RODs. More fundamentally, there is considerable skepticism that the rule will improve safety, even for the small portion of accidents that are fatigue-related.  On the other hand, some commenters identify many potential benefits from the proposed rule.
[dig]
Accuracy of EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) cost estimates. Several commenters challenge FMCSA’s equipment cost estimates. Much of this discussion focused on FMCSA’s use of the Qualcomm unit to calculate likely costs, with commenters insisting that the market for devices and the range of possible compliance options is  broader than FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) recognized.  As for other elements of FMCSA’s estimates, however, commenters say the cost predictions are too low.  Four main areas were discussed:

(1) Useful-life estimates. One commenter (owner of a trucking company with ten units) predicts that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) will need to be replaced sooner than the ten-year lifespan FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) uses—at least for carriers working in high temperatures and rough conditions where electronics fail faster. (More generally, he/she points out that the standard device warranty period is only three years, which suggests that ten years is much more than manufacturers’ confidence level.) This commenter also points out that many small carriers would have to purchase computers to store EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) data, a cost not included in the NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: the official document announcing and explaining the proposed rule estimate. Hence, FMCSA’s estimates are too low.

Three commenters raise concerns about what happens when an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) malfunctions or breaks down and needs to be repaired or replaced. Although the commenters assumed that drivers would use paper logs if the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) stopped working, at least one is concerned that it might require taking a CMV Commercial Motor Vechicles out of service.

(2) Size of market/Available devices. Two commenters affiliated with equipment manufacturers/suppliers say estimates are too high because FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) used the Qualcomm unit: Other, cheaper options could comply with the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) specifications. One commenter (an employee of an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) equipment manufacturer) explains, “The market for EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) providers is more comprehensive than the [NPRM] suggests, today this industry is extremely fragmented. While Qualcomm has had a dominant market share on-board communications, it can be argued there are more units from other vendors running e-logging applications. Other vendors in this space include Cadec, CarrierWeb, DriverTech, International Telematics, JJ Keller, PeopleNet, PeopleNet, Safefreight, Teletras, TransCore, Trimble, WebTech Wireless, XATA, Zonar.” Although most manufacturers currently produce fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies management systems of which the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) is just one component, “If the NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: the official document announcing and explaining the proposed rule passes, it is probable that FMS fleet management system vendors will offer a logs-only solution.”

Commenters within and outside the equipment manufacturer/supplier business predict that the proposed rule would likely result in an expansion of the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) manufacturing industry (especially, in the view of one commenter, if EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) are required for all) and anticipate that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) will become less expensive over time.

(3) Use of cell phone or GPS. The primary alternative to the Qualcomm unit discussed by commenters involves connection of an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) system to a cell phone. At least five commenters (including both carriers and equipment manufacturers/suppliers) praise the utility, cost-effectiveness and simplicity of being able to comply by using a multipurpose device like a smartphone or GPS—particularly for small companies. One commenter (an equipment manufacturer/supplier) points out that “the 395.15 and 395.16 component to the regulation[s] require engine connectivity[,] which most cell phone applications do not have,” but notes that “there are exceptions, such as Xata Turnpike which uses an application on the handset paired with a device (Route Tracker) tied to the engine.” This commenter also explained that the Xata Turnpike is paid for on a subscription model at $35 per month, plus a smartphone with a data plan. Another commenter (an equipment manufacturer/supplier) says that the JJ Keller system costs $199 with a $6 monthly fee and a smartphone data plan.

Commenters also discussed some potential complications or downsides to a cell-phone connected EOBR. One commenter (an owner the company that owns the rights to repayment of the mortgage principal plus interest of a trucking business with 134 units) points out that the “dead zone” phenomenon could potentially prevent the cell phone from reporting the information; however, these systems can store the data and transmit it when the vehicle returns to a service area. Another (an owner the company that owns the rights to repayment of the mortgage principal plus interest of a trucking business with seven units) notes some challenges about usability of a cell phone, particularly that the keypad is too small to allow quick and accurate input of data. On the other hand, he/she observes that different programming could be developed (“such as a touchscreen device that would allow you to just drag a bar across the times you were on duty driving and then going up to do sleeper berth. Allow it to zoom in and do it in blocks”) and notes that larger devices, such as an iPad-type device or a larger GPS Global positioning system (A space-based global navigation satellite system that provides location and time information anywhere on Earth) unit mounted on the dash, could solve this. The first commenter points out that cell phones are less expensive to replace and more readily available than a single-purpose EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) unit would be—although the second commenter notes that cheaper cell phones might be unreliable.

(4) Current EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) specifications. Four commenters addressed the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) specifications.  Two propose additions or changes that would reduce the cost of these units.

One commenter (an owner the company that owns the rights to repayment of the mortgage principal plus interest of a trucking business with 134 units) recommends that the specifications should be limited to requiring GPS Global positioning system (A space-based global navigation satellite system that provides location and time information anywhere on Earth) tracking, electronic HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) logs, and data transmission capabilities. He/she also urges that the specifications should allow equipment manufacturers to make their units compliant by providing software updates.  Telenav Track and Xoraas are examples of companies that should be able to do this. The other commenter (an owner the company that owns the rights to repayment of the mortgage principal plus interest of a trucking business with 7 units) favors relying on GPS Global positioning system (A space-based global navigation satellite system that provides location and time information anywhere on Earth) tracking with data transmission, rather than something more complicated that tracks motor use.  He/she says that GPS-only EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) are the simplest solution, and simplicity is more important than FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) may realize: “‘Simpler to operate than many mobile phones’ is a subjective statement. Many drivers violate their logs, but many of the drivers violate their logs because they can’t count or pass basic math classes either.”  He/she also says that GPS Global positioning system (A space-based global navigation satellite system that provides location and time information anywhere on Earth) tracking is more difficult to tamper with because even if a driver travels through an area with poor satellite connectivity, the system will be able to calculate the vehicle’s HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) when connection resumes.

This same commenter also urges that EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) specifications be reviewed and revised every five to ten years, on the basis of FMCSA’s estimated ten-year life.

A third commenter (the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) manufacturer employee who also made the point about a broader supplier market) points out that “All vendors in this space will need to make changes to both hardware and software to be compliant with 395.16 regulations.” He/she is concerned, however, that “it can be difficult to understand what solutions are compliant with what regulations (e.g. 395.15 vs 395.16).”

One commenter (an owner the company that owns the rights to repayment of the mortgage principal plus interest of a trucking business with seven units) suggests requiring that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) be pre-installed in new CMVs Commercial Motor Vehicles (vehicles owned or used by a business) by manufacturers. A standardized system pre-installed will cut costs for production, training, use, and maintenance. This commenter recognizes that “the trucks that are already on the road would pose the larger issue” needing a more complex solution.

[dig]
Overestimate of savings from EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) use. At least seven commenters strongly criticize FMSCA’s estimates of savings to truckers and carriers from not having to complete RODS.

One (an owner the company that owns the rights to repayment of the mortgage principal plus interest of a trucking business with an unspecified number of units) criticizes the estimates as “…‘generalized’ or ‘median’ with no real accounting for the myriad real differences in carrier size, operating costs, or budget.”

Six emphasize that small trucking companies do not have clerical staff to manage RODS, so the estimated “savings” for these workers will never materialize. Many small businesses require drivers to complete this paperwork on their own.  Moreover, they do not compensate drivers for the time it takes to complete RODS.  One (a long haul/short haul independent owner/operator) explains that many drivers are compensated by miles driven, not by hour. Therefore, driver time “savings” are also overestimated.  This commenter explains his own situation: “I buy 12 log books a year at approximately $1 each for a total of $12 per year. Since I fill out, file, etc. the RODS Record of duty status (A logbook maintained by CMV drivers to track driving time (i.e., duty status) for each 24-hour period) myself there are no other costs.” Another (an owner/manager of a trucking business with an unspecified number of units) says that even for companies, the cost estimates of driver time for submitting RODS Record of duty status (A logbook maintained by CMV drivers to track driving time (i.e., duty status) for each 24-hour period) to employers is way too high. “[D]river time submitting [the RODS] is a non-starter. They tear them out of the book and fedex them to me along with BOLs.”

And, in any event, according to one commenter (an owner/manager of a trucking business with 7 units) the hourly rates FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) used to calculate  savings (driver  $29/hour; clerical staff $27/hour) are both overestimated by as much as $17-$19/hour in some companies.

One commenter (a long haul/short haul independent owner/operator) does his own cost/benefit analysis:  “I only spend about $12 a year on paper log books to comply with DOT’s Hour of Service (HOSHours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive)) regulations. Over a ten-year period, I will spend about $120, the DOT’s proposal requires me to spend $7850 over a ten year period.”
[dig]
Debate about industry-wide & societal costs and benefits. There was disagreement among commenters about whether EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) would benefit the industry overall.  Some commenters saw benefits, especially if the devices offered more sophisticated services.  When it came to small carriers specifically, however, commenters uniformly predicted a serious negative impact.   

(1) Commenters predicting benefits. Some commenters argue that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) offer significant benefits.  One (affiliated with an equipment manufacturer/supplier) offered a list of benefits that his/her company has seen:

• Paper work time savings of 15 to 30 minutes for filling out the logs in the proper form. Reduction in supporting documents needed to prove logs or fuel tax.
• Easier to use than paper (through the level of automation provided).  Many current violations are from form and factor mistakes, which can be as simple as someone not writing down a line; such mistakes are virtually eliminated.
• Easier to keep up with HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) changes: Based on the complexity of the new rules, EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) help keep a driver straight on what is legal. Also, ability to change rule sets (e.g. US to Canadian) with a flip of a switch.
• Added time in a day: A minimum stop for paper log is 15 minutes; electronic logs can get down to the minute for an accurate stop. If drivers do many stops in the day, their legal drive time increases.
• Interoperability of working with other fleets: an electronic system can help move an O/O from fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies to fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies based on hours available. Send an electronic report to a dispatcher to prove the hours available.
• Detention billing: EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) give proof to location and time spent at a shipper’s yard. In the discussion, a big criticism to EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) is drivers having to start their day on duty while at a dock. Drivers should be billing the detaining company detention time for lost hours, and an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) will make this easier. By showing compliance with HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) laws, and having shippers understand what it takes to be a legal trucker, truckers can charge the rates deserved based on time and distance.
• Ability to prove adherence to Hours of Service laws: Legal truckers can be proud of their safety resume.  Also, on seeing the use of electronic logs, enforcement officials may not go into the details on log books. Many small fleets now will fail an audit. Electronic logs give support to documentation that paper log books will not.
• Warnings if time is low: a paper log book doesn’t help a driver know if hours are low. EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) quickly show available time left when driving. According to XATA’s customer base fleets that use e-logs have better fatigued management CSA scores.
• Keeping drivers on task: EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) can use as a productivity measuring tool. You can measure the time at stops, time on the road, and time in between. These accurate measures help show inefficiencies and time that is wasted.

(This comment was filed late in the comment period and so did not get any direct responses;  from earlier comments, some commenters consider some of these items (e.g., low time warnings; productivity measuring) to be sources of stress rather than benefits.)

Three commenters (two of whom are affiliated with an equipment manufacturer/supplier) predicted that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) could have additional value if they are equipped with more features and function more like a fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies management system. One (an owner/manager of trucking business with 7 units) said, “we have a chance to be innovative. Why spend 1500 dollars on a unit that could be emulated onto a much cheaper device with other capabilities.”  Suggested features  of an enhanced EOBR  included: (i) For customers: enable accurate reporting of arrival/departure times, automatic notifications about possible delays, real-time tracking synced with google maps; (ii) For drivers: provide a view of upcoming roads, a monitor for speed limits, the ability to find restaurants, banks, rest stops, etc… ; (iii) For carriers: the ability to divert drivers (around traffic jams, road construction, bad weather) and to advise drivers about where to get fuel, encourage better routes (leading to increased fuel efficiency), automatic fuel tax reporting, black box reporting for accident reconstruction, driver scorecards, and allowing safety officers and dispatchers to view real-time HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) data to ensure compliance.

(2) Harm to small carriers. However, roughly a dozen commenters predict that costs of the rule would put small carriers and owner/operators out of business. There is considerable anger that big carriers can absorb these costs and will benefit when small carriers go under.  One commenter (a long haul/short haul trucking business with 2 units) predicts that the public will experience an increase in the cost of delivered goods because truck owners will have to pass on the cost of EOBRs.

One (an owner/manager of a trucking business with 7 units) used FMCSA’s figures to estimate that the rule would cost his small business $15,785 for the first year, assuming no repairs or other problems. He/she criticized FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) for “present[ing] this as if it were some kind of miniscule cost for a small carrier,” and predicted that the industry will see fewer new small businesses because of these additional start up costs: “How does $2255 for the first year seem like a small cost to a guy or gal that is operating on thin margins most of the year, factoring and constantly worrying about maintenance fees and random fees that might be incurred?  What about the fact that the fuel costs change faster than the freight pays sometimes?”

Another (a long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers owner/operator leased to another carrier) asks how he/she is expected to increase profits with the addition of a $1600 expense for an EOBR.  A third commenter (a long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers owner/operator leased to another carrier) expressed confusion about who will have to pay for this equipment: the truck owner the company that owns the rights to repayment of the mortgage principal plus interest or the leasing carrier.

The expected impacts on small businesses are so bad that three commenters (owner/manager of a trucking business with 7 units, a long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers owner/operator leased to another carrier, and a long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers hazmat owner/operator leased to another carrier) suspect that the proposed rule is intended to drive small carriers out of business. Most large carriers can afford these devices, and in fact many have already installed them in their fleets. These commenters fear that large carriers are using the government to crack down on small carriers, i.e., their competition.

One commenter concludes, “These smaller carriers aren’t accountants and many times they are not the best organized people in the world either. They’re living from day to day and paycheck to paycheck. I’m not even talking about our operation; I’m simply speaking for the trucking industry in general. Do I think EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) are a good idea? Sure. Many of the things [FMCSA] report[s] are pretty accurate in my opinion. Do I think smaller companies should bear the burden of purchasing all of this equipment? No, I don’t.”

(3) Special burdens on small businesses that rarely use RODS. Three commentors identified particular burdens for small businesses that only occasionally operate in a context that requires RODS.

Two  identified themselves as farmers, ranchers, and custom harvesters. One has ten units that fall under RODS Record of duty status (A logbook maintained by CMV drivers to track driving time (i.e., duty status) for each 24-hour period) requirements for less than 15 days each year. Using FMCSA’s annual total cost estimate of $785/year for 10 years, she/he calculates that the rule would cost $52 each day (dividing $785 by 15 days). “With the 10 units it will cost me $520 dollars a day to move. All but 2 days a year I have to use RODS Record of duty status (A logbook maintained by CMV drivers to track driving time (i.e., duty status) for each 24-hour period) I average less than 350 miles a day. So while moving my 10 units in convoy the use of EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) is going to cost me $1 to $1.52 a mile.”  The other commenter (along haul owner/operator leased to another carrier) asks, “What about farmers and ranchers that haul cattle and hay a few months out of the year? What about the custom Harvestors who travel a circuit harvesting grain about six months out of the year?”

The third commenter (a short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers independent owner/operator) explains, “I work for a company that has four ¾ and 1 ton pickups pulling trailers with a GVWR of under 8,000 pounds. We cross state lines occasionally. The costs involved in this rule would all but put our division out of business…We may only need to drive CMV’s 3-5 times per month.” This commenter asks FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) for more exemptions to account for small businesses.

Another commentor echoed this request, reminding FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) of its responsibilities, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, to include flexibility and scalability for small businesses to reduce administrative and financial burdens.  He/she says that FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) has failed to comply with these requirements, and should provide small businesses with less burdensome alternatives. One example would be to “…use a scalable process, for example companies with over 100 trucks might find it economically beneficial to use EOBR’s.” He/she also asks that “as required by Executive Order 12866 paragraph (11), DOT Department of Transportation conduct and publish an analysis of the cumulative effect on small business of all their proposed regulations combined.”

[dig]
Skepticism about safety benefits. For several reasons, commenters  doubt that the predicted safety benefits will be achieved.  Some even argue that EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) use could increase fatigue-related problems.

One (an owner/manager of a trucking company with 10 units) argues, “All of this…does not even guarantee a reduction of fatigue related accidents. It just stiffens the reporting requirements of HOS. Most motor carrier’s fatigue related accidents occur with no HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) violations.”

Two others question the validity of existing methods for measuring fatigue. One (a long haul/short haul independent owner/operator) is concerned that determinations of fatigued driving are subjective opinions and may be based on “political agendas” rather than sound evidence. He/she feels frustrated by how to “refute assertions of opinion that are masqueraded as statements of fact.” He/she cites “the legal decision regarding the Minnesota State Patrols flawed campaign against fatigue that was struck down by the courts in 2011.” The second (an owner/manager of a trucking business) questions the value of the crash study: “What the study failed to report were the number of trucks with EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) that were involved in accidents, compared to the total number of EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) equipped trucks and the number of non-EOBR equipped trucks compared to the percentage. In other words, the federal government is proposing that us truckers take on tremendous expense with no evidence that this really helps.” This commenter believes that most accidents have primary, secondary, and tertiary causes, and that the agency can choose how to present the data so that it supports stricter limits on truckers.  DOT Department of Transportation ought to provide “…‘peer-reviewed’ scientific studies that provide facts about how to measure fatigue, how much fatigue actually costs, and what are the true costs of this…” regulation.

A different reason for skepticism about safety improvement come from two commenters who say they have talked with drivers who used EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) and were able to manipulate them. “EOBRs know when you are driving, but not necessarily when you are working and not driving.”

Two commenters argue that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) may actually increase the likelihood of tired drivers. One explains that “Under the current rules, a driver can plan, schedule, and execute his routes based on his/her understanding of the route (driving in some terrains and weather conditions can be more fatiguing than others), equipment, type of load, weather, and other factors. Under the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) scheme proposed by DOT, drivers will essentially be required to drive even when they know they are tired. Since companies and the government will be monitoring every aspect of their driving, companies will most likely employ drivers that can ‘max out’ the hours allowed by the government, drivers will be forced to drive even if they know they are tired.” This commentor urges DOT Department of Transportation to study safety results of drivers who are required to drive when they know they are tired, but due to financial and regulatory rules must continue driving. He/she offered a possible solution: “Many have advocated for [a] split sleeper berth provision that would allow the driver to use his/her own professional judgment to determine fatigue.”
[dig]
HOS and EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) inflexibility. One commenter (an owner/manager of a trucking business) described a “frequent” scenario in which small carriers paid to haul freight booked by large companies suffer when circumstances out of their control push drivers to violate HOS.  When the large company books the job, “there is little connection between trucker and shipper.” Then, because the small company’s driver has no connection to the shipper, he/she is “often unable to demand payment for extended delays at the shipper or receiver… Freight brokers have no incentive to pay truckers for delays—which often can amount to a day or a night—because they don’t have a connection to the trucker…Shippers are not required, nor do they feel any compunction to pay for this time. As a result, drivers often refuse to log this time because they must turn miles. No miles, no pay…This is in my experience, is the biggest impediment to fatigued driving. If shippers take up 25% of a driver’s valuable work time[,] the driver must make up for it by pushing the limits of his or her endurance.” The problem is more serious because small carriers “often must accept lower rates—the companies booking the freight take 25% off the top.”  This commenter suggests that the best way to prevent fatigued driving is to resolve this problem. “Make sure that all [drivers’] hours are compensated and they will stop violating HOS.”

[dig]
Government subsidization of EOBRs.  Six commenters urge some sort of a government subsidy for the purchase of EOBRs. One  compares it to the government helping citizens switch from antennae TVs to digital cable.  Several different ideas were proposed.

One suggests a one-time grant for companies with fewer than fifteen trucks.

Another proposes a subsidy that works “as a cooperation with manufacturers of the vehicles on any new vehicles that enter the market. A standard EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) system would need to be introduced to cut costs and keep it consistent across the board. This would cut production costs as well as training costs in relation to safety officers inspecting the EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) and what to expect. If the EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) are always the same they know exactly what they’re doing when they inspect one-and so will the drivers and everyone else in the industry.” With respect to existing carriers, this commenter thinks the three-year compliance time is reasonable and should apply to all carriers “as long as enough time is allowed for the smaller fleets to get the subsidies or anything else they could get to help pay for the equipment, install it and train their drivers in its use.”

One commenter, a provider of GPS Global positioning system (A space-based global navigation satellite system that provides location and time information anywhere on Earth) fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies management solutions, is concerned that many carriers that have already purchased tracking devices will be non-compliant under the new rule.  He/she recommends that the government offer a credit to such businesses.

Four commenters note the recent NAFTA agreement regarding Mexican drivers.  Three insist that the US government should subsidize EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) for US truckers if they are going to subsidize EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) for Mexican truckers. The fourth is more broadly critical: “It is…my understanding that all of us American truckers will be paying for all of the Mexican truck’s EOBR’s because Obama has mandated it to be so. Now, in addition to me paying for my truck and the Mexican trucks, they will come up here burning cheaper fuel and charging cheaper rates and competing against me in an unfair way (mainly because the US Government is subsidizing them)…”

Finally, one commenter (an owner/manager of a trucking business) suggested a different kind of incentive:  “Offer a reduction in safety scores if companies voluntarily go to an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) system…I would bet that if FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) allowed a rollback of some, or all of the points for fatigued driving, that many companies would jump at the chance and voluntarily begin EOBR.”
[dig]
Concerns about over-regulation. Several commenters  expressed anger about this proposal in particular and over-regulation of the trucking industry in general. Commenters described themselves as feeling “harassed.” “It appears to me that the US government wants American trucking to cease operating and be taken over by foreign interests…” Others described the government as “Big Brother.” One said that this proposed rule is one reason why very few owner the company that owns the rights to repayment of the mortgage principal plus interest operators Self-employed commercial truck drivers or small businesses that operate trucks for transporting goods over highways for their customers trust FMCSA, and that regulations like this unfairly target trucks rather than all motorized vehicles.

Three commenters (two independent owner/operators and one owner/manager of a trucking business with two units) worry about additional regulations and costs that the trucking industry faces. “We already are penalized by having to sit for hours at shippers without pay. We are paid by the mile but our miles are limited by hours of service, shippers whims, inspections in every state we pass through…long lines at weigh scales, speed limits, mandatory stops, etc…” These regulations and costs include: “registration, authority, process agents, IFTA stickers, UCR, 2290 Highway Road Use, fuel taxes, ad valorem tax, insurance, drug consortium, enforcement penalties, self-employment tax, elimination of the 11th hour of service, TWIC cards, cell phone prohibitions, no idling laws, mandated rest breaks, California CARB rules, new rules for fuel efficiency, and the proposed 1099s.”

Comments questioned who would benefit from the sales of this equipment. At least five commenters express concern about how the proposed rule would benefit Qualcomm. One (an owner/manager of a trucking business) complained, “There is an obvious connection between the forced implementation of the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) and Qualcomm and other device manufacturers.” Four others (all owner/operators or owners of small trucking companies) believe there is a pro-Qualcomm bias in the rule. One of these (a long haul/short haul owner/operator) made specific recommendations on this point, including the removal of references to Qualcomm from the rule, a review of DOT/FMCSA employees for connections to Qualcomm, and a prohibition against DOT Department of Transportation employees going to work for Qualcomm for at least two years.

Read what commenters have said about their personal experiences relevant to the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule here.