What’s going on 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.)

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.

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.

(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.

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.”

(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.”

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.”

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.”

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.