What’s going on 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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.”

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.